LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, April 28
Township voters do have a choice
To the editor:
In the editorial, "Don’t deprive Princeton of second party" (The Packet, April 18), you expressed dismay that no Republicans filed petitions for any of the local offices up this year in Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. You encouraged Republicans to make a last-ditch effort to get on the ballot so that voters can have "a real choice in November."
What you fail to note is that Princeton Township voters do have a real choice this year in the Democratic primary in June.
When Township Committeeman Bill Hearon announced earlier this year that he would not run for re-election in November and that he planned to resign from office early the local Democratic Party facilitated broad participation in finding a successor. Five well-qualified candidates stepped forward. The membership of the Princeton Community Democratic Organization, open to all Princeton Democrats, and the township Democratic Municipal Committee, with elected representatives from each voting district, each had the opportunity to evaluate and endorse the candidates.
Mr. Hearon’s last-minute decision not to step down early prevented anyone from being appointed to his seat in the immediate term. But it had no effect on the open, democratic process that has now winnowed the original five candidates down to two seeking the Democratic Party nomination in the June primary.
Far from being in "disarray," township Democrats are energized by the widespread interest and participation in the upcoming primary election. In a town largely dominated by one party, competition within the party and an open debate about its direction is healthy and should be welcomed by all editorial writers and voters alike.
I urge all Princeton Township Democrats those who are already declared and the thousands more currently "unaffiliated" to pay close attention to the campaign now under way, and to take the opportunity to exercise a meaningful choice on Tuesday, June 6.
Dan Preston
Chair
Princeton Township Democratic Municipal Committee
Moore Street
Princeton
Bypass is dead, keep it that way
To the editor:
In its plans to redevelop the Princeton Junction area, West Windsor clings to the concept of a road through the Sarnoff property along the Millstone River.
This is the same roadway that the state Department of Transportation rejected. After over two years of research and public input for the Penns Neck Area Environmental Impact Statement, the DOT determined that the environmental, archaeological and historic impacts of the road far outweighed the minimal traffic abatement the road might offer.
While the EIS concludes only that the road cannot be built with federal funds, one would be unwise to assume that the path is clear for West Windsor to build the road. Many of the same impediments that stopped the DOT remain to confound West Windsor and Sarnoff.
First, there is now documented evidence for nesting New Jersey-threatened owls, as well as evidence of an endangered fish and mussel (see the Final EIS Executive Summary and Appendices). The state Department of Environmental Protection required the DOT to study the area further; it will require West Windsor to do the same. Since the release of the EIS, bald eagles have been documented to be nesting and breeding along Lake Carnegie. The Millstone River along Sarnoff’s property is well within the bald eagle’s foraging range, and any damage done to the river could impact the endangered bird’s feeding and nesting habitat.
Second, West Windsor and Sarnoff would have to contend with the removal of toxic waste generated by Sarnoff years ago. Both are willing, unfortunately, to let the toxins remain where they are now, but should they decide to build a road, both would be saddled with cleanup costs and the potential to release the toxins into the region’s drinking water.
The third impediment to construction of a road through Sarnoff is financial. With the consideration of the Millstone Bypass was the opportunity for the DOT and the Federal Highway Administration to give West Windsor and Sarnoff a free road. Now that both agencies have panned the idea, West Windsor and Sarnoff must foot the bill. Environmental and public-health reasons aside, it is the cost of the road that will be the largest deterrent to the resurrection of the Millstone Bypass.
The Sierra Club strongly favors redevelopment over new development, as long as such construction is not harmful to the environment or to public health. West Windsor’s plan to revitalize the Princeton Junction train station area could result in a more environmentally friendly way of life for its residents. But to destroy the Millstone River and its banks in the process is just plain wrong.
The Sierra Club, along with other community groups, spent several years working on the EIS. We agreed upon a solution that, while not perfect, was acceptable to everyone. Should West Windsor attempt to revive the stretch of road that caused so much commotion a few years ago, the Sierra Club and its allies will be ready once again to oppose it.
Laura Lynch
Conservation Chair
Central Jersey Group and New Jersey Chapter
Sierra Club
Lumar Road
Lawrence
The time has come to thin the flock
To the editor:
Since the National Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Count in Princeton on Dec. 20, 1968, the Canada Goose count has risen from 20,397 to 42,700 on Dec. 18, 2005. The total bird count for 2005 was 71,590, so rounded off the Canadians constitute 60 percent of the total that is three out of every five birds.
The count covered a 5-mile radius centered at Princeton Borough (with a population of 14,285), so it included Princeton Township (16,662), Lawrenceville (4,081), Princeton Junction (2,382), Kingston (700), Rocky Hill (666) and no doubt other communities that I am inadvertently overlooking.
This totals 38,776 people, which amounts to one Canada Goose per person, with 3,924 left over for the uncounted people. No doubt that Lake Carnegie in Princeton, and the ponds at places such as Sarnoff, ETS, etc., sustain most of the geese, and most of their pollution in the form of guano and urine. That’s a heavy burden for the lakes and lawns in the area to carry. Guano contributes to eutrophication of the water until it becomes unfit for use by human beings and can no longer support many fish and other animals. Some lakes naturally become eutrophic, as we saw when Princeton University dredged the lake about 20 years ago.
I remember in the literature when having a goose for Christmas dinner was considered a sign of wealth. Remember the goose at Christmas in "A Christmas Carol"? A reference librarian at the Princeton Public Library, who prefers to remain anonymous, told me that the Cratchits had to send their goose out to be cooked because poor people could not afford an oven that big.
If each of us ate just one goose this Christmas, we could reduce our goose population to just 3,924. Now I call that ecology!
I realize this suggestion is going to irritate a lot of goose lovers who adored the Mother Goose nursery rhymes, but remember I am not advocating eating a Mother Goose, but eating a Canada Goose.
Seriously, anyone living near these hordes of geese knows they are not the happy creatures that people who idealize nature think. Unlike deer, geese, especially the ganders, are extremely aggressive, not only towards other ganders this is to be expected but also to the hapless jogger who invaded their territory, as a Princeton professor and friend found out to her dismay and consternation.
Several years back, two friends welcomed a mating pair of geese onto their beautiful lawn. The next year, this pair, and their goslings, came back for an encore. This year, I counted over two dozen geese waddling up the runway. There is no pleasure in reporting that now they chase them away, but I do so in order to illustrate the futility of idealizing nature.
The constant squabbling and squawking day and night are signs of the stress that animals, including humans, display in over-populated areas. The humane thing to do is to re-balance nature by thinning the hordes I mean flocks.
Carl Faith
Longview Drive
Princeton
Is South Dakota protecting children?
To the editor:
South Dakota’s anti-abortion law bans nearly all abortions, even when pregnancies result from incest or rape. Doctors who perform an abortion could get a $5,000 fine and five years in prison. Their Republican governor said, "The true test of a civilization is how people treat the most helpless in their society."
According to the Children’s Defense Fund, a child in South Dakota is abused every two hours, and every four hours a child is born into poverty. South Dakota ranks 31st among the states in infant mortality. Only five states have a worse record of early prenatal care. Perhaps the governor should spend more time dealing with how his state treats children after they are born and less time interfering with an individual’s right to choose.
The Bush administration has pushed public schools to teach abstinence only for pregnancy prevention. This has been shown to be ineffective or even counter-productive, thus assuring more abortions. Our rate of unintended pregnancies is double that of western Europe and, consequently, our abortion rate is double theirs. Teens in many European countries are more sexually active than American teens but have only a fraction of our unintended pregnancies and abortions. The reason is probably better sex-education classes in European schools. In our schools, sex-education classes that discuss birth control as a way to prevent pregnancy and sexual diseases are being replaced by teaching abstinence only. Contraceptives are discussed only in terms of their failure rate.
We could easily cut our 1.3 million abortions a year with enlightened sex-education classes but until we rid Washington of Republicans pandering to the religious right, this will not happen.
Ronald A. LeMahieu
Sequoia Court
West Windsor

