Letters to the Editor, April 20

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, April 20

Republicans offer change in Princeton
To the editor:
   
We’re heartened by the Packet’s endorsement (April 13) of governance change and competitive democracy, even if offered with a gratuitous swipe at those who actually stand for both—and for whom 45 percent of Township citizens voted in 2005: Princeton Republicans.
   And we’re delighted that alternative Democratic mayoral candidate Kim Pimley has endorsed Perestroika in the Princetons, our long-standing position. She proposes a choice "to stay the course with the current leadership, or to change the course under new leadership." Our sentiments exactly. We salute her courage to take on the machine. If she fails in the primary to break the entrenched Democrat’s "iron grip" (as the Packet itself calls it), we warmly welcome Miss Pimley to join hands in the general election with the Republican agents of change for Borough Council.
   Meanwhile, how about Princeton Community Democratic Organization President Jenny Crumiller’s recent utterance, reported elsewhere in the same edition: "In a one-party town competition is essential." How right she is about the need for competition. Stand by. Princeton Republicans have now mustered to make that happen. But how very wrong, in fact and in attitude, about two things. Does she really believe there can be true "competition" within her "one-party"? And that our citizens will ascribe to her insular "one-party town" ideal for our future?
   Ossified, arrogant, "iron-grip" Democrat rule in Princeton: haven’t we had enough already? Now even Democrat dissidents are joining our cause for more democracy and better governance. The people are restive. They demand change.
Mark Herr
Great Road
Princeton
Thomas H. Pyle
Balsam Lane
Princeton
End mismanagement of downtown project
To the editor:
   I was both heartened and troubled to see Councilman Martindell’s response (April 6) to my recent letter on the downtown redevelopment project. His willingness to embrace transparency and to encourage scrutiny of the project is refreshing news for borough taxpayers.
   Sadly, his letter reveals additional issues that have been little discussed in public, such as the developer’s failure to pay $150,000 in rent owed to the borough over the last year. Why isn’t the borough collecting rent? Are there penalties being levied for late payment – the borough charges its residents the exorbitant rate of 18 percent interest on late (no grace period) tax payments? Why is the borough negotiating with the developer about Phase 2 of the project if the developer refuses to meet its Phase 1 obligations?
   In the private sector, the appropriate course of action would be to cease all negotiations with the developer concerning Phase 2 until all outstanding issues are resolved with Phase 1, including the payment of overdue rent, the construction of the pergola, the satisfactory completion of the leaking garage, etc.
   Another course of action would be to invoke Section 4.1.2 of the redevelopment agreement, declare the agreement terminated because the developer does not having financing in place for Phase 2, and seek an alternate developer in whom we might have greater confidence in completing the project and potentially better terms for the Borough.
   A third course of action would be to perform a complete review of the much delayed and costly project to determine whether its original goals are being met (revenues, capital and operating expenses, parking requirements, and aesthetics) and whether those goals and objectives should be modified in light of the intervening years and continuing problems at the site.
   What is not appropriate is to continue business as usual. Nothing is getting done and except on-going negotiations apparently to further sweeten the deal to motivate the developer to complete the project. Isn’t it time to find alternative developers to pick up where the present one has stumbled? Competitive bids for the contract (which should have been done at inception) will focus everyone’s attention on how to best get out of the quagmire we are in.
   Indeed, it is ironic/bizarre that, on one hand, the Borough is negotiating more favorable terms for the present developer to encourage him to execute an existing contract while on the other hand the Borough is a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the developer against the Borough in connection with Phase 1 of the project. Taxpayers are sure to get the wrong end of both deals.
   It is time for the Borough Council to fulfill its fiduciary duty and seize control of this project; it’s time to require the developer to meet its contractual obligations for Phase 1; it’s time to solicit alternative proposals for completion of the project; and it’s time to reconsider where this project is going.
Mark G. Alexandridis
Princeton Avenue
Princeton
"I voted against" the school budget
To the editor:
   
I admit it now. I voted against the Princeton school budget. Indeed, I have voted against the school budget for the last 3 years—since 2004. But no, friends and neighbors, I am not an anti-education troglodyte. There are major issues here.
   For twenty five years, since we first moved to this fine town, I had voted resolutely for the school budget each and every year. I had and have a strong conviction that the future of our society is entirely dependent on those who are children today, and a belief that education is the best way to develop an informed citizenry able to make important social and political decisions.
   I do not have children of my own, but our society’s future is just as dependent on today’s children whether I have my own or not. It has not been acceptable in intelligent society to question these expenditures for our children.
   But my concerns began some years ago. The particularly large cost increase in 2000, where a "second question" was used to get around cost caps, was the beginning of my great discomfort.
   Expenditures subsequently requested for topflight athletic fields, a large swimming pool, a state-of-the-art performing arts center and other features much more substantial than needed for education, and with uncertain connection to educational benefit, eroded my belief that adequate cost-control was being used at a time of financial stress.
   Annual budget increases that were always considerably greater than inflation; well-meaning, hard-working, but amateur school boards utterly unequipped to negotiate tough labor contracts; a complete refusal by the School Board to acknowledge the impact of the Cranbury contract on enlarging our high school on its size-limited site; later budget supplements for predictable expenses to clean the enlarged facilities and to staff the Performing Arts Center (as the high schoolers would say, "duh"); the strong statewide resistance to changing the date of the school election (thus ensuring that most voters are parents, a few of whom openly admit that they live in our town only for the years of their own childrens’ education and then move to cheaper towns); even an astonishing (albeit brief) consideration this year of using the "second question" technique yet again to do an end-run around cost caps—all these enhanced my increasing conviction that this is no way to run schools.
   I am as surprised as anyone that the school budget was defeated this year. It should not, I think, be interpreted as a specific objection to this year’s budget. It is a buildup of a long-simmering dissatisfaction with budgets and expenditure choices over the last several years. I remain convinced that our children must be educated well. But we need better ways to run our schools with controlled budgets and realistically affordable facilities.
Anthony Lunn
Hawthorne Avenue
Princeton
School budget ad was "misguided"
To the editor:
   
Although the Montgomery school election is over, I want to respond to the misguided, last-minute advertisement in last week’s Princeton Packet opposing the school budget.
   People may disagree on whether extracurricular fees are an anathema to public education or recognition by the board that residents without students deserve property tax relief. Regardless, I believe this ad was more about an ongoing personal vendetta against the K-12 curriculum directors than a concern about fees.
   What type of school system do we want in Montgomery, especially considering the extraordinary growth in the last decade?
   • Do we want to mentor our teachers and provide resources to expand their subject matter understanding? Should we provide professional development as required by law? Do we want to help teachers differentiate their instructional techniques to reach all students?
   • Do we want to observe and evaluate our teachers (37 percent are non-tenured; 66 percent have less than six years experience) to help them grow and ensure that teachers who receive tenure are outstanding?
   • Do we want to have horizontal articulation so all students in a grade are consistently taught the same subject matter and vertical articulation to ensure there is a seamless transition from one grade/building to another?
   • Do we want master teachers who can fill in when a teacher is out for an extended period?
   • Do we want Montgomery teachers to benefit from educational research to prepare our students for the 21st century? Do we want the New Jersey curriculum standards to be the ceiling for our students or a floor so they can compete on an international basis?
   • Do we need a person to administer special education programs so special needs students are taught in-district where possible or at an appropriate outside placement when necessary? Do we want someone to direct the use of technology by teachers and students?
   • Do we want to continue the curriculum renewal process to ensure that what our students are taught is organized, current, uses the best textbooks available, and meets changing standards?
   • Do we want people who work with other districts, colleges, and universities to bring new ideas into the district and provide grants to offset property taxes?
   The answer to all of these questions is yes. The district curriculum directors are responsible for or are actively involved in all of these activities. They are not a luxury – they are a best practice. They are dedicated professionals who have been critical to making Montgomery the outstanding district it has become and are vital to ensuring the district’s continued success.
   For many years, the Montgomery School District Superintendents and Boards of Education have understood the importance of these positions. Unlike the advertisement’s suggestion that we have an administrative bureaucracy, spending in Montgomery is significantly below the state average. In fact, we are the 18th lowest spending of the 103 K-12 districts on administrative costs. The Curriculum Directors are an integral part of ensuring that Montgomery is an efficient, high-achieving, and well-run district. Thanks to the community’s support for the budget, we will remain a district of excellence.
Richard Specht
North Street
Montgomery
Storm response in Rocky Hill
To the editor:
   
As you stated in your article this past Tuesday, a storm of this size only comes around once every one hundred years or so. Unfortunately, with Hurricane Floyd only eight years ago, Rocky Hill has seen more than our fair share of the flooding that happens in these situations. I’ve been told that the water level of the Millstone River during this storm actually rose higher than it did during Hurricane Floyd.
   On behalf of the Borough Council and all of the people we represent I would like to thank the Rocky Hill Hook & Ladder Company and the Rocky Hill First Aid and Rescue Squad for their tireless efforts this week. I’d also like to thank our Constables and our Council members who were out directing traffic and doing whatever they could to support the efforts so that our fire and rescue teams could do their jobs.
   Our residents were there with food, coffee and volunteering to help. Getting through this storm truly was a community effort and it showed that in a time of need we can all put our differences aside and work together for the good of the borough and safety of our neighbors. For that I am personally extremely grateful.
   Our fire and rescue teams, made up entirely of volunteers, worked hard in preparing "at risk" residences and local businesses for the coming storm and were there to pump out flooded homes and basements. They responded to multiple rescue calls including water rescues. They worked hard through the night, without complaint, on an extremely high number of responses. Throughout the event they also provided aid and comfort to stranded travelers. The professionalism of their members and especially their leadership is something we are all very proud of.
   As Rocky Hill’s emergency response organizations come into fund raising season, I respectfully ask that our residents and those of the surrounding communities our squads support show their appreciation for a job very well done.
Ed Zimmerman
Borough Mayor
Rocky Hill