LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, May 13
Neighbors concerned about quality of life
To the editor:
In response to the article, "Architect proposes mixed-use plan for hospital site" (The Packet, May 6), we, the residents of the hospital neighborhood, feel that J. Robert Hillier’s tentative plans for the hospital site are designed with the community in mind but miss the mark in several important ways.
Of course, all interested parties fully understand that Princeton HealthCare System needs to get the best value for its land, and that maximal occupancy and density bring economies of scale to potential buyers. Mr. Hillier’s plan to aim the housing in the current hospital building at "empty nesters" is clever, as it will increase the borough’s tax base without adding additional strain on the school system while addressing the community’s request for senior housing. His plan for mixed-use sites, neighborhood stores, public parks and open space are also appreciated, as they speak to points made by the community in the series of public meetings that PHCS and the Hospital Relocation Committee have held.
However, Mr. Hillier’s plans fail to address the residual impact that the added density will have on the surrounding community’s atmosphere. First, the plans call for the surface parking lot on Franklin Avenue to be converted to between 30 and 56 market-rate units in addition to the 280 units in the hospital building itself, bringing potentially hundreds of additional cars and a steady river of traffic. This massive increase in full-time traffic will flood the streets around the hospital, including Harris, Jefferson, Moore, Franklin and Henry at all hours of the day and night. None of these roads are even currently wide enough to support the already significant volume of traffic that travels them daily.
Second, to accommodate our new neighbors, it is easily imaginable that traffic signals will be installed at the corner of Franklin and Witherspoon and at the corner of Franklin and Jefferson, effectively making Franklin Avenue a traffic funnel into the neighborhood. Franklin Avenue is currently a pedestrian artery, followed by our school-aged children on their way to Princeton High School, John Witherspoon and Community Park schools. Increased traffic flow will not only be unpleasant and inconvenient for residents and drivers, it will be dangerous for pedestrians.
We understand that PHCS’s interest is in rezoning its land to be as profitable and attractive to potential developers as possible. We further understand that the township and the borough’s interests are aligned with PHCS, in that more owners and residents contribute much-needed tax revenue at little added cost. However, to rezone or develop the land in such a way that it destroys the quality of life in a quiet, residential neighborhood is not simply impolitic, it’s un-neighborly.
We ask that the borough, the township and PHCS: 1) reconsider developing on the Franklin surface lot; and 2) create alternate traffic patterns to ease the strain on a neighborhood unequipped to deal with traffic volume 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Jonah and Amy Lansky
Harris Road
Anita Garoniak
Harris Road
Marco Gottardis and Jean Meyer
Harris Road
Andrew and Judith Budwig
Moore Street
Marc and Susanna Monseau
Moore Street
Martha Friedman
Jefferson Road
Mike and Julie Harrison
Jefferson Road
Helen Schwartz
Jefferson Road
Thoughtful plans for hospital site
To the editor:
Although further details are still to be defined, we wish to express our initial favorable reaction to the thoughtful plans outlined by the Hillier firm for mixed use of the current University Medical Center at Princeton site should the hospital move from its current location. ("Architect proposes mixed-use plan for hospital site," The Packet, May 6.)
The Hillier proposal incorporates a continuing-care retirement community including independent, assisted-living and nursing care, which would truly allow seniors to age in place. In addition, seniors would be able to walk to many in-town facilities rather than having to drive everywhere from a more remote location.
This proposal contrasts with a current one put forth by the Hovnanian Co. to build age-restricted senior units. These units would not have the benefit of the onsite continuing-care medical facilities of the Hillier proposal to allow seniors to remain in place as their medical conditions change from independent status. In addition, the Hovnanian plan would be more remotely located on Bunn Drive on the Princeton Ridge, necessitating motor vehicle trips for all offsite requirements. It will also require the destruction of a 1,700-tree woodland fostering increased flooding and other environmental degradation, whereas the Hillier plan makes practical use of existing structures.
One item missing from the Hillier plan is provision for a freestanding medical clinic/emergency facility, similar to the one now maintained by the hospital, for all Princeton residents who could have significant difficulty traveling to the Medical Center’s new location, especially some residents of the adjacent Witherspoon area neighborhood. Such a facility was endorsed in the report of the recent ad hoc Princeton Healthcare Task Force. The Medical Arts Building, proposed by Hillier for demolition, would be an ideal site for such a clinic, which would also be of great benefit for residents of any continuing-care retirement community.
In general, however, we wish to commend the Hillier firm for its proposal.
Grace L. Sinden
Ridgeview Circle
Norman J. Sissman, M.D.
Battle Road West
Princeton
Housing concept thorough, thoughtful
To the editor:
The coalition for Senior Housing in Princeton took great pleasure in reading the article (The Packet, May 6) about the proposal by architect J. Robert Hillier for use of the University Medical Center at Princeton and surrounding area when the area becomes vacant. Mr. Hillier’s thorough and thoughtful concept for community housing, including senior housing, makes a lot of sense.
The coalition is also delighted to see that senior housing has finally become an important issue in Princeton. The coalition has been working for almost 13 years on this issue and has tried to impress upon the citizens of Princeton the importance of senior housing for low, affordable and market-rate residences.
Could it be that it has become an important issue because at least 35 percent of the population in the Princetons is now made up of senior citizens?
We hope Mr. Hillier will continue to pursue this excellent idea.
Eleanor Angoff
Coordinator
Coalition for Senior Housing in Princeton
Hollinshead Spring Road
Montgomery
Committee must listen to all its constituents
To the editor:
Recent letters to the editor on the Montgomery school budget urge the Township Committee to ignore the support for the schools and budget expressed at last week’s meeting. Even if I were not one of those supporters, I would heartily disagree and urge the Township Committee and others to listen to all their constituents.
Yes, the school budget was rejected by a margin of 2-1, and, yes, this is a powerful signal to the Township Committee most immediately and to the school board in the future. Cuts will need to be made, and I support the process set in place and the thorough and detailed look that both the Township Committee and school board is taking to make those cuts.
Yet that process both allows for and considers public input. In speaking to the Township Committee, many supporters made the point that this community has consistently supported quality education. Five years ago, we passed the referendum for a new high school 4-1, and in my 22 years living in Montgomery, this is only the second time that I remember the school budget failing. Residents urged that the Township Committee not interpret this vote as a retreat from quality education. Others asked that their voice be heard in thinking through what cuts to make. These voices asked the Township Committee not to increase class size, not to cut disproportionately from certain programs, to keep extracurricular activities and to be careful about cutting administrative costs blindly.
These are reasonable requests from concerned and involved residents and voters, and they need to be listened to. Those who urge the Township Committee not to take these comments "for real" do a disservice to all of us, regardless of how we voted on the school budget.
I urge the Township Committee to listen to all the voices as they deliberate the budget cuts. Ideally, cuts can be made that will not jeopardize the overall quality of education in Montgomery. Finally, I hope that the community will acknowledge the hard work and thoughtful, tough negotiations between the Township Committee and school board, and accept the inevitable compromises that must be made.
Barbara Devaney
Updikes Mill Road
Montgomery
Huge development is out of place in Rocky Hill
To the editor:
Your story "Home-size codes tweaked" (The Packet, May 10), was a wonderful reminder that the character of our neighborhoods is very important to the residents of Princeton. Princeton is not alone, as towns all over New Jersey are protesting the destruction of the scale and character of their neighborhoods. As Princeton puts the finishing touches on an ordinance that will limit the construction of over-size houses, the mayor and council of Rocky Hill have unwisely adopted an ordinance that does the opposite.
Tragically, last year in the historic borough of Rocky Hill, our elected officials in secret, and without public input or discussion negotiated with a landowner/developer to permit over-size homes. To make matters worse, the homes are to be combined into duplexes of an amazingly inappropriate scale. Each home is to be 3,500 to 4,000 square feet, (34 units permitted) and, when combined to form a duplex, the result is 7,000-8,000 square feet per each of the 17 structures (not including garages and porches). Even our public and civic buildings such as the municipal building, our firehouse, the largest church and a recently rehabilitated commercial structure are all dwarfed by these proposed structures.
A historic district largely defines Rocky Hill and it is on the State and National Register of Historic Places (since 1982). We also have an accompanying historic preservation ordinance for that district. The rezoned parcel of over-sized homes is actually within this historic district. The misguided actions of our elected officials are an attempt to disregard and dilute these pre-existing protections of scale, character and the identity of our village. Rocky Hill residents live here because of those qualities that we assume are being protected.
Your article about Princeton’s efforts makes mention of the public meetings and adjustments to the ordinance during the process of publicly debating and discussing the issue. In Rocky Hill, no such public debate or discussion actually occurred while the ordinance was being crafted. The truth is, that since the Schafer tract re-zoning "went underground," not very many residents are aware of the final result. They will be shocked by the magnitude of the buildings and the impact this ordinance will have on the physical fabric of our village, our neighborhood character and our landscape.
When the development for this tract of land is submitted for Planning Board review, it is your duty to check this out for yourselves, demand the objective and critical review process required by law and demand real answers to your questions. Everyone needs to know that the Planning Board was promised a full review of the application, complete discretion to interpret for themselves whether or not the submission complies with our ordinances, fits into the built context and is compatible with the historic district. You should know that public presence and comment does matter and can influence the actions of our officials.
I personally know how difficult it is to be conducting controversial business in public, but now, more than ever, I know why it must be done that way. You should be deeply concerned that individuals are claiming to represent you and your interests in secret and under questionable circumstances. Its not too late to recognize the mistake that was made in creating the ordinance, before it becomes a built mistake in our village landscape. I encourage you all to participate, voice your opinion, question the actions of your local officials, and be vigilant.
Susan Pikaart Bristol
Washington Street
Rocky Hill
Opera is blessed with talent, devotion
To the editor:
Something new and wonderful has come to Princeton under the banner of the New Jersey Opera Theater.
The performance of "II Trovatore," in concert at Richardson on May 6, was more than spectacular, with stars from the Metropolitan Opera, a 55-piece orchestra and a chorus under the leadership of maestro Michael Recchiuti, a seasoned opera conductor who has conducted companies in Venice and many other European and American venues. When one can not only follow the story line in Italian with no prompts but is kept on the edge of his seat for the whole performance, it can only mean that one is in the presence of overwhelming talent. And overwhelming it was, with the likes of Elizabeth Blancke-Biggs as Leonora, Allan Glassman as Manrico, Peter Castaldi as Conte di Luna and Eugenie Grunewald playing the gypsy Azucena.
This company has scheduled "Figaro," "Barber of Seville" and "Cherebin" with costumes, staging and a full orchestra for this coming August in the Berlind Theatre of McCarter. If the quality of these productions is anywhere near what we saw last Friday, Princeton is in for opera rivaling that seen in New York and Philadelphia.
Perhaps the most incredible part is that this new company was founded just three years ago by Scott and Lisa Altman, both seasoned performers but neither of whom had run an organization like the New Jersey Opera Theater. Yes, I know they had assistance from a board and some helpers, but it was the Altmans who provided the drive and the inspiration for project.
We are blessed with such talent and devotion.
Bob Levine
Linwood Circle
Princeton
Remember those who made supreme sacrifice
To the editor:
America will soon observe Memorial Day, and our citizens will engage in various activities that have become associated with this holiday over the years.
Some view the Memorial Day weekend as the beginning of the Jersey Shore season. Others take advantage of the sales that abound, while others will kick off the summer with backyard picnics with family and friends.
Whatever we choose to do on Memorial Day, we must be mindful of the fact that we have the liberty to participate in such activities because we live in the greatest democracy yet created.
During the course of history, our freedom has been threatened by the evil forces of tyranny. But Americans have always held the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be so precious that they are willing to die to protect them.
The true meaning of Memorial Day is to remember the men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice. They died so that we may continue to enjoy the many liberties afforded us by our Constitution, and I urge all citizens to remember them on this Memorial Day.
James Vialard
State Commander
American Legion
West Hanover Street
Trenton
Fight efforts to weaken special education laws
To the editor:
It is time for special education families, relatives, friends, advocates and other supporters to organize and converge to protect our rights, which are being whittled away.
IDEIA 2004 is the federal revision to special education law that allows states to weaken rights of and support for special education students and parents. States with stronger law in areas where the federal law allows weakening can opt to keep the laws stronger. The good news is that special education families and allies across New Jersey are joining together to call upon the Department of Education, acting Gov. Codey and state legislators to stand with our children by foregoing the most offensive changes.
Part of the effort is being coordinated from the Student Advocate Web site, http://StudentAdvocate-NJ.org, where a petition drive has already garnered support from over 600 NewJersey residents. The petition calls upon New Jersey to hold the line on 11 points that are important to special education students and their families:
1) Elimination of short term objectives;
2) The changing of an IEP period from one year to three years;
3) Regular education teachers would no longer need to attend IEP meetings;
4) Midterm assessments of progress toward objectives can be eliminated.
5) Stay-put provisions prohibiting unilateral district placement change while an issue is in dispute can be eliminated;
6) Manifest determination rules can be weakened, making it easier to suspend or expel a child with a behavioral disability;
7) Increasing the time for which a child can be removed to an "alternative learning environment";
8) Decreasing the frequency parents must be notified of their rights;
9) Imposing a statute of limitations for holding a district legally accountable;
10) Imposing a state-run resolution meeting on due-process procedures; and
11) Increasing the age for transition service from 14 to 16.
If you are concerned about these issues, visit the Student Advocate Web site to sign the petition and learn of other efforts around the issue. You can get more information by calling (908) 881-5275. The Web site provides tips on letter-writing and other actions you can take. While the petition has been launched by A Parents Initiative for Every Child’s Education, it is being supported by organizations and individuals throughout New Jersey. You can learn more about the issue and this effort at a meeting 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, at Mary Jacobs Library, 64 Washington St., Rocky Hill.
In New Jersey, there are 225,000 special education students. There are between 300,000 and 400,000 parents of such children. Add in our relatives, advocates and other supporters and we could represent a million voters. Imagine if we converge our efforts and resources. We can prevent the weakening of these laws that are so vital to the survival and realization of the full potential of our children.
Bob Witanek
Griggstown Road
Montgomery

