Letters to the Editor, Nov. 11

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Nov. 11

Save shade trees at shopping center
To the editor:
   
When is a shade tree not a shade tree? When it’s cut down. I find it hard to understand the plan, recommended for approval by the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, to remove the locust trees from the Princeton Shopping Center courtyard.
   Those trees were planted the last time the courtyard was upgraded to become more "user-friendly." They were puny little saplings that did nothing during the hot summer months to relieve the glaring expanse of the concrete surrounding them, nor to shade the benches set out in the blazing sun. Now that the trees have matured and are casting their comfort of shade over the area, they are being condemned as old trees that must be felled to make way for another batch of puny saplings.
   Where is the logic here? Out with the old, in with the new is not always the best answer. Those trees have fulfilled their destiny. Their welcome canopy of shade provides us with comfort and beauty. Prune them judiciously if necessary, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s be grateful for this cooling oasis in a world too fast becoming a harsh desert.
June Connerton
Richardson Court
Princeton
Affordable housing no threat to environment
To the editor:
   
Many of our state residents have to drive unnecessarily long distances to work or to visit family and friends, wasting gas and creating pollution. Why? One reason is that more and more of us cannot afford to buy or rent a home near our employment or in towns where we grew up.
   I wholeheartedly support the Homes for New Jersey effort to persuade state lawmakers to take action now because we can have more affordable housing and make sure adequate environmental safeguards are in place.
   All of us understand that more housing means more development, but it does not have to result in the destruction of environmentally sensitive resources or require us to sacrifice conservation areas. The building of homes where sound infrastructure already exists and can accommodate housing makes sense — economically as well as environmentally.
   As co-chair of the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment, I strive to help others understand that more housing doesn’t have to result in environmental degradation. If we adhere to proper planning and identify environmentally appropriate locations, the building of affordable housing benefits everyone. In fact, a well-planned mix of housing in appropriate locations, close to mass transit and other key infrastructure can actually help us improve our environment.
   We also should not forget that preserving existing affordable housing stock is just as important as developing new units, a fact prominently espoused by the Homes for New Jersey coalition.
   Many New Jerseyans who sit in traffic every day realize that exhaust fumes pollute the atmosphere, forests and water, hurting our environment more than we would be if we had shorter distances to travel to work, or if we lived close enough to walk or bicycle to our offices.
   The Homes for New Jersey campaign is to be commended for making affordable housing for all New Jerseyans a priority, and for proposing real action steps that can help our state achieve the goals of preserving and creating good homes for future generations.
   I am an environmentalist who realizes that decent, affordable housing is a necessity that we can promote without compromising our important initiatives to protect the land, our water and air.
Sally Dudley
Co-Chair
Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment
West Hanover Street
Trenton
Criticism of Alito is misdirected, unfair
To the editor:
   
Samuel Alito was criticized (most likely by a Bush-basher) for being another graduate of eastern Ivy League schools. It seems to me that having an education from Princeton University and Yale Law School is a claim that can be made by very few people in this world. Why would an accomplishment so praiseworthy be stated as a criticism?
   Sam Alito is known for superior intellect, outstanding education, judicial experience, moral principles and integrity, and is highly regarded by the judicial community. It is criminal that our media focuses on negative reporting without mentioning all of the wonderful attributes held by the outstanding candidate for our highest court.
   U.S. lawmakers are not doing their job. They are paid by us — the taxpayers — to do the work we elected them to do. Right now, that means going through the confirmation process for Judge Alito with a sense of fairness and urgency, so the high court can function with all nine members. Instead, Congress has decided to look into the background of weapons of mass destruction, at this critical time, and delay the confirmation hearings.
   Too many members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are time-wasters who deserve to be voted out of office. It accomplishes nothing to have a well-qualified candidate harshly criticized. Why doesn’t Congress try to support the president and go to work to fairly evaluate the remarkable credentials of Sam Alito so that he can be confirmed in a timely manner? Judge Alito’s critics are unable to suggest another candidate half as well qualified.
Sandra Billok
Westminster Drive
Somerset
President should be cleaning house
To the editor:
   
At a time when President Bush should be cleaning house and getting rid of those responsible for the failed policies of his administration, he is doing the opposite.
   With Scooter Libby under indictment and Karl Rove in extreme peril of the same fate, Dick Cheney’s replacements for Mr. Libby are two insiders who have been responsible for the continuing attempts to justify the Iraq war. They apparently also were Vice President Cheney’s advisers on the use of torture against our prisoners.
   Ellen Sauerbrey, nominated by the president to head a key State Department humanitarian bureau, could not come up with a reason at her confirmation hearing why her lack of any experience coordinating emergency aid shouldn’t disqualify her for the job. Her key qualifications are that she served as Maryland chair of Mr. Bush’s 2000 campaign. Also, she has vigorously pursued an anti-abortion and anti-family planning agenda.
   President Bush’s choice for chief Pentagon spokesman, J. Dorrance Smith, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "American TV networks are aiding terrorist organizations by running Al Jazeera’s videotape." We already have too many people in the administration whose job it is to attack and attempt to discredit the media. In fact, Mr. Libby was indicted for essentially that reason.
   When, if ever, will our president get it?
Ronald A. LeMahieu
Sequoia Court
West Windsor
What is benchmark for moral outrage?
To the editor:
   
Most readers will agree with letter writer Carey Bloom that we should not turn a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur (The Packet, Nov. 1).
   Perhaps our collective moral outrage is tempered by how many innocents are murdered: 500,000 Iraqis by Saddam Hussein during his regime? 800,000 Rwandans during the ever-popular Bill Clinton’s presidency? An estimated 400,000 civilians in Darfur and the count growing every month?
   Maybe the benchmark goal for real outrage is 6 million, the number of Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust.
Jerry Preiser
Hillrose Way
Monroe