Letters to the Editor, March 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, March 2

Readers agree on library parking
To the editor:
   
In its Feb. 23 editorial, The Princeton Packet rightly notes that Princeton taxpayers are "entitled to candor and full disclosure" from our elected officials. The details of the dispute between township and borough officials over subsidized parking for library patrons are, many would suggest, portions of a hidden iceberg of undisclosed matters of local governance.
   As the Packet observes, Princeton officials seem to be attempting to avoid "argue(ments) in front of the children." The Packet is correct: We Princeton citizens are apparently viewed by our elected officials as children who are incapable of independent decision-making.
   Thank you, Princeton Packet, for your courage in requesting full disclosure on matters of Princeton governance. For my fellow Princeton citizens I would ask, will you continue to accept your treatment by elected officials as little children, incapable of independent decision-making?
Gordon Bryant
Ettl Circle
Princeton
‘Tweedledum and Tweedledee?’
To the editor:
   Your recent editorial described it well. "You don’t want to go there!" Mayor Trotman hissed, to Mayor Marchand, amidst their unbecoming public squabble about the Library parking subsidies.
   Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Or is it a cat fight?
   What’s worse than an entrenched mayor of a one-party-controlled, for-a-decade-dominated municipal government stonewalling the public about a convoluted, controversial, cockamamie subsidy scheme?
   Two such mayors! Of the same party! In the same community! Stonewalling the same issue! Running up public expenses and taxes and not playing straight with the populace!
   Yikes. Is it time yet for a real two-party system in Princeton? Is it time yet for a responsible, open, effective alternative to the ossified, cantankerous, unimaginative, quibbling, quarrelsome, tax-it-high, spend-it-all status quo, now in power without opposition for nearly 10 years? When?
Thomas H. Pyle
Balsam Lane
Princeton
Fight between mayors the wrong approach
To the editor:
   When the downtown library and Spring Street parking lot were under construction in the summer of 2003, many of us were concerned about access to the new library in congested downtown Princeton. We voiced our concerns in letters and in a referendum drive for a branch library in the Princeton Shopping Center.
   Marvin Reed, then borough mayor, went on the record in July 2003 with a letter to both The Princeton Packet and the Town Topics, stating, "Parking charges will remain the same as the old Park-and-Shop lot and, as before, library patrons will be able to have their parking ticket validated for up to two hours of free parking."
   His response certainly sounded like an honest commitment from the appropriate public official, and it played a part in allaying our fears about the downtown location.
   In January 2007, library patrons were greeted with signs saying that parking validation would end in February. Perhaps coincidentally, soon after this policy went into effect, Borough Council acknowledged plans to increase parking fees at the Spring Street lot by 50 percent. What happened?
   From news reports in The Packet and Town Topics, we learned that there never was free parking at the Spring Street lot. Instead of a simple, free two-hour parking arrangement between the library and the two municipalities, a deal had been struck whereby the township subsidized the borough for the use of the lot by township residents.
   One wonders whether the deal breaker was the difference between the two-thirds of the parking subsidy the township had been paying, based on tax ratables, and the four-fifths figure that "municipal officials" brought up as the fraction of library parkers living in the township. So now, without two hours’ free parking, public library users who don’t live within walking distance must pay an extra users’ fee.
   Fighting over who pays the "subsidy" for library users is the wrong approach. The library was built by and belongs to both the township and the borough. Access should be equivalent. The borough — not a private entity — owns the Spring Street lot. At this point there should be no subsidy; parking for library card holders should simply be free for two hours.
   Why aren’t the library and Township Committee advocating on behalf of library users and township taxpayers? The Borough government should keep in mind that it is part of an interdependent Princeton community. Borough Council needs to start acting like a good and responsible neighbor, not like the greedy landlord of a local parking lot. The township does not charge parking fees for use of its public parks and playing fields. Who knows, given enough opprobrium generated by the Borough’s behavior, and enough political will, a library in the township, with the concomitant loss of two-thirds of the downtown library’s funding, could become a reality.
Abram Gabriel
Terhune Road
Princeton
West Windsor charrette was open and positive
To the editor:
Last Thursday, February 22, George Washington’s Birthday, saw a remarkable event take place in West Windsor Township. Four hundred people, according to newspaper estimates, packed the ballroom of the Hyatt Regency to standing room only to participate in the first of three scheduled public forums centered on the Redevelopment District surrounding the Princeton Junction Train Station at West Windsor.
   The fact that 400 people, myself included, took time out of their busy lives to offer their opinions on the content, design and priorities for this project, for 3 hours, speaks well of the desire and interest to improve the area as a sense of place, pride and community that this township needs.
   The fact that 400 people did so participate in such a civilized manner speaks volumes about the openness of the process, about the desire for a dialogue with the planners and designers, without political infighting, without political spinning, without political interference.
   Discussions centered on the redevelopment on both sides of the Northeast Corridor line, from Vaughn Drive to County Road 571 and Alexander Road by the present Acme Supermarket site, since this entire area encompasses the redevelopment district.
   Discussions also centered on providing adequate pedestrian and bicycle access on both sides of the train line to bridge the community, to centralize the community and the "downtown" area – on both sides of the train line.
   Thoughts were expressed concerning parking space; will there be more, the same, or less; how will they be arranged; will there be a parking garage, or more than one; where will it, or they, be located?
   There was discussion on seeking a permanent location in the aforementioned redevelopment zone for the West Windsor Farmers Market and the West Windsor Arts Council, as well as community based venues and events.
   Based upon this forum, as well as others, it appears that many people in this township are interested in forming a sense of place, a sense of community and from this vantage point, it appears that, yes, people want a location to go to in the evenings and on weekends to meet friends and spend time with family; perhaps listen to a string quarter or a jazz ensemble, get a bite to eat or a cup of coffee, pick up a paper, read a paper, a book or just plain enjoy the moment in their community, without having to cross onto or over Route 1 or Route 130 and go to a mall all the time. It is not a synthetic place, it is not Forrestal Village – one glaring difference is that there will be upwards of 7,000 people entering and exiting the train station on a daily basis.
   Yes, the circulation element will be key, and that was discussed, as well, including the Vaughn Drive Connector, one of the few points of consensus arrived at during the Penns Neck EIS review several years ago.
   And yes, concern was raised that this be a tax positive, or at least a tax neutral redevelopment for West Windsor taxpayers. All of these are valid concerns that were discussed, and should continue to be discussed.
   So yes, let’s continue the discussion, the dialogue, provide input, and generally help form this sense of place for our community. See you at the next meeting on March 17th at WWPHSS! And check out www.wwallaboard.org to find out where the upcoming meetings will be held, as well as maps and other important items to examine and peruse.
Richard Eland
Courtney Drive
West Windsor
"Historic" opponents are missing the point
To the editor:
We have followed the heated discussions about the designation of the Western Section of Princeton as an historic district. We strongly support that designation.
   Opponents of the historic designation miss the point about historic houses. The value of a historic house is based not only on its own characteristics, but also on its location in a stable, high-quality neighborhood. House renovations may be done tastefully and correctly, or not, depending on the homeowner’s choices. The market will decide whether those changes were good or bad. But a homeowner has no control about renovations done to a neighbor’s house and those may have a significant effect on the property value of their property unless there is neighborhood oversight offered by historic district designation.
   They also miss the point about why this action was taken in the first place. As residents of the neighborhood, we have been increasingly concerned about specific issues in the neighborhood, such as the traffic problems on 206, development plans for Morven, etc. We feel that having the neighborhood designated historic gives us a stronger role in influencing those changes. Having a united, stronger voice is important at this point, and we feel the Historic District label is an important addition for confronting these issues.
   The opposing voices seem intent on misrepresentation and shouting down arguments rather than addressing issues. The claim about not being able to choose the color to paint your house without bureaucratic oversight is completely false. Correct information was available to everyone from documents presented at the very first discussion.
   What do opponents think the future of the Western Sections should be? How will their proposals accomplish it? How do they address the issues confronting our neighborhood? Cries of "bad big government" and "preserve individual rights" don’t hold much weight without specific proposals to address real issues. Representative democracy tries to balance community needs and rights against individual freedoms. That’s what is happening here and real discussion, not rhetoric, is needed.
David Tolman
Dorothy Shepard
Library Place
Princeton