Letters to the Editor, Dec. 9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Dec. 9

Town-gown squabbles are hurting both
To the editor:
   
It was 50 years ago when the St. John family became accustomed to enjoying regular Sunday afternoon carillon concerts and met Professor Bigelow, the carillonneur. He loved the instrument and its music, and would explain how, as the centuries rolled by, the tone of the bells only improved. So I came to believe that this mingling of town and gown was another thing that made this town such a great place to live.
   Today, however, town and gown only seem like immature children squabbling and attacking each other.
   I despair of my borough thinking that they are superior to the university, which is bigger, richer, more famous, more accomplished and more productive than the borough.
   Then there is the university thinking that it can ignore its borough foundation, without which it couldn’t begin to function.
   Doesn’t anybody know that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and that partnerships exist because the members together accomplish more than they could by themselves?
   If only both parties were constantly trying to offer just what the other needs, I know that all would receive benefits that I can’t even imagine.
Charles E. St. John
Prospect Avenue
Princeton
PU is borough’s largest taxpayer
To the editor:
   
First a disclaimer: As a 55-year resident in the area and a holder of two degrees from Princeton, I have to declare that my blood runs orange and black. I am therefore angered when I feel that my alma mater is being unfairly treated.
   Your coverage of Whig Clio’s forum with Borough Council candidates David Goldfarb and Mildred Trotman made several references to the university’s financial contributions to Princeton Borough. Let’s look at some of the relevant numbers, which are made available each year to the governing officials and the public.
   Princeton University is the largest taxpayer in Princeton Borough. Last year, the university paid $3.05 million in total property taxes, plus $1.03 million in sewer taxes. Thus, even though many of its properties are tax-exempt, the university pays taxes on many properties, some of which are commercial, but several of which might qualify for tax-exemption, such as graduate student and faculty housing. It has been the university’s policy to keep voluntarily on the tax rolls any property that might potentially contribute children to the schools.
   Of the $3.05 million paid in taxes by the university, the borough gets approximately $763,000 — the rest goes to the schools and the county. The borough last year collected $8.9 million in taxes for borough purposes; therefore, the university paid about 9 percent of the total amount of taxes collected by the borough.
   In 2005, the university made voluntary contributions to the borough of more that $800,000, including $250,000 for road repair and other capital projects. If you add the university’s voluntary contribution to the taxes the university pays just to the borough, the university is contributing more than 17 percent of the borough’s tax revenue.
   In recent years, the university also has made very substantial capital contributions for borough projects — including $300,000 for Monument Drive and $150,000 for the new plaza by the public library. It has also contributed to projects such as renovation of the local public schools ($500,000), construction of a new public library ($500,000), and purchase of a new Rescue Squad vehicle ($155,000), in which the university’s contribution reduced the demand on local taxpayers.
   All New Jersey taxpayers have a right to be unhappy about our horrendous tax burden. We should go after the real culprit and not the great institutions like Princeton University that deserve our support so they can continue to be an inspiration and a great state and national resource.
Jeremiah Ford III
Nassau Street
Princeton
‘Shop Smart’ to benefit schools
To the editor:
   
The Princeton Education Foundation wishes to invite all local merchants to participate in the second annual "Shop Smart, Shop Princeton" campaign. Shop Smart, which began Nov. 25 and continues throughout the holiday shopping season, encourages townspeople to support our local merchants while supporting our Princeton Regional Schools.
   It’s simple for shoppers and merchants. Shoppers need only show their Shop Smart cards, distributed through the schools, at the Princeton Public Library and through several local merchants, to participating merchants. These stores have agreed to make a charitable contribution of 10 percent of the price of the purchase, or an in-kind contribution to the Princeton Education Foundation.
   The proceeds from this year’s and last year’s Shop Smart purchases have been designated by the merchants for science equipment.
   This year’s merchants include:
   Au Courant Opticians; The Bent Spoon; Go for Baroque; Cox’s Market and Catering; Craft Cleaners; Cranbury Station Gallery; Forest Jewelers; Giselle Dancewear; Hinkson’s; Hulit’s Shoes; Ici Bebe; Ici Fashion for Children; Ici Monde; Image Photo; Jazams; Kitchen Kapers; Landau; Learning Express; J. McLaughlin; Mehek Restaurant; Micawber Books; Nassau Interiors; Olive’s; The Papery; Pryde Brown Photographs; Ralph Lauren; Red Green Blue; Ricchard’s; Ricky’s Candy, Cones and Chaos; The Soup Man; Subway; Thomas Sweet Chocolate; Thomas Sweet Ice Cream; Triangle Repro; Tuscan Hills; White Lotus Home; and Zorba’s Brother Restaurant.
   Updates on participating merchants can be found on the PEF Web page, www.pefnj.org, and the PRS Web page, www.prs.k12.nj.us.
   The Princeton Education Foundation is grateful to the community for its continued support for its efforts in supporting programming in the Princeton Regional School District.
Alison Fox
Board President
Princeton Education Foundation
Kathie Morolda
President
Princeton Borough Merchants
Princeton
Redevelopment plan raises many questions
To the editor:
   
West Windsor taxpayers: Hold onto your pocketbooks. The bill for Grovers Mill Pond is about to cost you an extra $1.2 million over the $500,000 you have already spent — a sum that is $600,000 more than the three-year capital plan to fix the deadly Alexander Road S-curve.
   Unfortunately, allowing someone else to run the cleanup of the pond — the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and now state Department of Environmental Protection — means the West Windsor taxpayer is stuck with having to respond to their needs for more money. Just imagine what this lack of control and management savvy will mean when we start building a $1 billion transit village.
   There is, however, a solution for those of us who really would like to see a transit village. Before voting for redevelopment, the West Windsor governing body could insist on a number of standards for the project, including one that would yield property-tax relief for all current taxpayers. How about a 50-50 deal? For every dollar in profit made by developers and the commercial property owners around the station, the taxpayers should get a dollar of property tax relief. This might curb the enthusiasm for residential units in the state’s No. 1 school district. And, on traffic generation, since smart growth means less reliance on the automobile, another standard might be: No more cars than are currently traveling on West Windsor roads headed for the train station. Surely we have traffic counts.
   If the Township Council is going to vote for redevelopment, shouldn’t we at least know what standards they are setting for what this development is expected to yield in benefits for existing West Windsor taxpayers and voters? Shouldn’t council at least share with the residents what plan they have to make sure the transit village does not turn into a giant pond? If we are clear about the benefits, then controlling costs should follow. More stores to buy bagels may not be sufficient as benefits.
   And shouldn’t council’s approval for seeking redevelopment status be conditioned on adoption of some standards? After all, once redevelopment status is granted we are on a fast track to non-disclosure, given the development hurdles that are eliminated, including public hearings. This fast-track authority is one of the reasons townships seek redevelopment status and it comes with eminent domain capability even if the powers that be say they won’t use it. They’ve got it — along with the right to push through development.
   We need to hear now from our elected officials — before they vote for redevelopment, not when the project finds its way to the back room. Let’s not get Hamiltoned in West Windsor.
Farrell Delman
Bear Brook Road
West Windsor
Group appears to have ax to grind
To the editor:
   
As a longtime resident of West Windsor, I read with interest your article regarding Franc Gamabatese and the "Common Sense" group forming in West Windsor (The Packet, Dec. 6).
   I am all for the formation of a group that can educate and bring about a strong consensus among township residents. This group, in my opinion, is not starting off on the right foot.
   If you read through the threads posted on the WWP Today Web site regarding this group, you will see that the incubus for the group was an idea by those residents who did not like the decision passed by the Township Council after the ZIP code proposal. Some were not happy that a small but vocal group organized and presented a case to council. Likewise, this "Common Sense" group seems to be altogether ignoring the fact that the reason the ZIP code resolution was declined was because of the possibility of dubious survey tactics used by the township. In essence, a section of the township was left out of the survey because of the possibility it might influence the outcome of the survey. The council could not move forward using data that might have been flawed from the beginning of the process.
   The outward hostility of the "Common Sense" group is furthered by the sentiments of various (all anonymous) posters that seem to take on more of a mob mentality than the ideology of a group to educate and inform its residents. In all of the postings, not one person has made mention of working with the other community-based groups that are already in existence. Compromise seems to be a word missing from that group’s vocabulary.
   I am 100 percent behind any group with the intent to inform and educate fairly and without prejudice. From outward appearances, this group has a gigantic ax to grind and is forming to do exactly that. If the group is so concerned with the ZIP code resolution, where were the residents during the publicly held meeting regarding the resolution? They were not happy with the result of that meeting yet no one bothered to show up and voice an opinion when it mattered.
   Now Councilman Gambatese has lent his endorsement to a group that was born on an Internet chat site and is not even formed yet. I have serious concerns about the involvement of a sitting council member in a group that has the potential to divide the community more than it does to unite it.
   If "Common Sense" wants to truly unite and educate the community, perhaps meeting with the other existing community groups might be in its best interest.
Michael J. Ranallo
Cornwall Avenue
Trenton
Attacks on Murtha egregious, defamatory
To the editor:
   
Recently, U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, sharply criticized the war in Iraq, stating that our troops have nothing more to accomplish in Iraq and demanding that American troops be brought home within six months.
   For his courage and honesty, Republicans assailed Rep. Murtha’s character.Vice President Dick Cheney even accused Rep. Murtha of losing his "backbone."
   The vice president attacks on Rep. Murtha are particularly egregious. Rep. Murtha is a former Marine who served in Vietnam, while Mr. Cheney received fiveVietnam-era draft deferments due to "other priorities."
   Mr. Cheney has absolutely no business questioning Rep. Murtha’s "backbone." He and the Republicans enjoy defaming anyone who questions their policies, but they seem to have a hard time looking in the mirror and admitting their own mistakes.
Eddie Konczal
First Avenue
Monroe