LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, June 19
No senior housing for Merwick tract?
To the editor:
In reading about the potential rezoning plans for the Merwick Tract, it was disappointing to see no mention of senior housing as one of the "mixed uses" to even be considered.
Such a location is ideal for a senior component to be included, where its members would have ready access to Princeton’s amenities, feel and be a part of the community, and more easily contribute to its political and social activities.
In spite of the planned developments up on Princeton Ridge, senior housing problems are not going to be affected. We should seize this opportunity to include our seniors in the community. It would be an absolutely outstanding solution to a serious and continuing problem.
Ronald Flaugher
Mt. Lucas Road
Princeton
Lawyer defends ‘mystery suit’
To the editor:
It is truly a great country in which we live. As Americans, we can speak freely, question our government, and have our disputes resolved in a court of law. These are rights guaranteed by our State and Federal Constitutions.
Thus, it’s disheartening, and even somewhat chilling, when there are efforts to deny these rights. Yet, that is exactly what’s happening in Montgomery Township.
A few small business owners, working hard each day to make ends meet, saw the proposal by a large out-of-state corporation to build The Promenade right next to their businesses. They know their town, they know the traffic, they know their businesses. And they know that this proposal as slated is a bad fit for Montgomery Township and its future. They want proposed development to comply with the zoning requirements and they want to be heard.
So they exercised their right to file suit against the developer of The Promenade and the Montgomery Township Planning Board, so that a judge of the Superior Court could decide whether the planning board acted contrary to law when it rubber-stamped The Promenade.
The planning and development process in New Jersey provides for public comment dissent and the right of appeal. Yet, those who are backing The Promenade project seem to think that only silence is golden, and that to question this decision of the planning board is some sort of betrayal of the town in which they live and work.
The litigants who have been involved in this lawsuit are proud to do business in Montgomery Township. They want to stay here and they want their town to be a source of pride for everyone. Yet, they also want to be able to ask questions, get answers, and have their day in Court.
These merchants understand the traffic hazards already existing at routes 206 and 518. After all, their businesses are right there they see it daily. They worry that the massive increase in traffic that would be drawn to this huge shopping center will compound those traffic hazards, creating extremely unsafe and inconvenient conditions for their patrons and all others trying to make their way through the area. They understand that the off-site improvements agreed to by the developer of The Promenade are far too little to prevent the gridlock the new development would cause. And they are concerned that traffic gridlock will adversely affect property values in Montgomery Township.
One would expect a developer who believes in its project, and public officials who believe they have done right by their town, to welcome the opportunity to have The Promenade scrutinized by the courts. But their reaction has been just the opposite. They have responded with a campaign of intimidation, with threats that those who have sought judicial review will themselves be sued for exercising their rights. That is a threat the developer and township officials know to be baseless, and is an outrageous attempt to silence dissent.
The developer tried to block review of the project, alleging "anonymous" funding of a "mystery" lawsuit. But there is no mystery about those pursuing this litigation. They are hardworking business owners convinced the planning board got it wrong. Fortunately, the court has rebuffed this effort to stifle public participation.
These men and women deserve to be heard. They deserve answers. They deserve their day in court.
Paul H. Schneider, Esq.
Half Mile Road
Red Bank
Editor’s note:
Mr. Schneider is the attorney of record for the merchants named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the The Promenade developer and Montgomery Township. In an interview with The Packet on June 14, he acknowledged that an anonymous backer is paying the legal fees but said the arrangement "has no bearing" on the suit.
Double standard in police blotter
To the editor:
In the words of Joe Friday of Dragnet, "just the facts m’am, just The facts".
While reading the June 15 issue of The Packet, I noticed that the paper had no trouble printing in the "Police Blotter," stories about residents and visitors alike, stating all sorts of information about the accused (who is presumed innocent until proven guilty), including their name and age, where they live etc.
Yet in a story (incident really), about a Princeton patrol officer being suspended, the chief of police refused to provide the paper (and therefore the public), any information concerning the identity of the officer or what he/she is accused of.
I would suggest to the chief and the paper that what is fair for the residents ought to be fair to the employees of those same residents.
John D. Boyd
Cherry Hill Road
Princeton
Borough’s action on Route 206 plan
To the editor:
On June 11, the Princeton Borough Traffic and Transportation Committee approved the following request that the state conduct impact studies on how a "Route 206 Bypass" would alter safety and quality of life south of Hillsborough:
"Princeton Borough’s Traffic and Transportation Committee requests that the New Jersey Department of Transportation delay construction of the so-called "Route 206 Bypass" until such time as thorough current impact studies can be conducted, as required under law, for the current configuration of the road.
We feel strongly that those impact studies should include impacts on communities in Mercer County that surround Route 206 as well as on communities in Somerset County. It is our understanding that previous studieseven more thorough studies conducted many years ago that examined a different configuration of the roaddid not examine the impact of this "highway" on Princeton and Lawrenceville. We are also concerned that even today residents of these communities in Mercer County are not considered by the NJDOT to be "key stakeholders" in the "Route 206 Bypass" project.
Because of its location on a primary connector between two interstate highways, it seems to us that Princeton Borough would immediately feel the impact of a new "highway" segment of Route 206. Our streets would be called upon to move more traffic more quickly between those interstates. But more crucially, because Princeton is an historic communitya community that dates from colonial timeswhat NJDOT considers a "highway" in Hillsborough becomes a main street in Princeton Borough with residences and historic structures built in close proximity to the road and many schools with children walking across Rt. 206 daily. Bayard Lane and Stockton Street in Princeton Borough are heavily used by people on foot and on bicycles as well as by local drivers, and their health and safety must be our primary concern.
Thus, it becomes absolutely crucial to Princeton for the State to consider whether making one part of Route 206 much wider and much faster will attract more vehicles traveling from the interstates through Princeton, and whether creating a new development corridor in Hillsborough that connects directly to the road that travels through the center of Princeton will have adverse effects on the safety of and quality of life for residents and visitors to Princeton.
Furthermore, the Federal Transportation Equity Act of 2003 emphasizes that new highway projects preserve a community’s environmental, scenic, community, and/or historic values, provide for consideration of the context of the locality, and encourage access for other modes of transportation. . . We urge NJDOT to take strong action to protect Princeton Borough and its residents from this highway project. It is essential that a current EIS be undertaken. A road should not be built based on outdated information. It is imperative that the EIS include information about the impact of the Bypass on communities south of Hillsborough."
Charlotte O’Connell
Traffic and Transportation
Committee chair
Borough of Princeton
Dismayed by Cottage Club ruling
To the editor:
Along with other borough taxpayers, I have noted with dismay the likelihood that the Borough of Princeton will have to repay the Cottage Club $320,000 for five years of back taxes. (The Princeton Packet, June 8.) A recent court ruling granted historic site designation and therefore tax exempt status to the privately-owned Prospect Avenue eating club. The borough council has suggested various actions to address this situation including state legislation, municipal ordinances, importuning the university or simply not paying the taxes.
After the posturing has subsided, the most likely outcome will be that the council’s preferred soft-touch, borough taxpayers, will end up with the bill. council members seem already to have forgotten the recent defeat of the school budget and the strong message conveyed that borough taxpayers are weary of unceasing tax hikes.
This latest financial embarrassment could have been avoided if the council had exhibited the foresight to put the Cottage Club tax payments into an escrow account until the legal situation had been definitively adjudicated. I would also like to reiterate the suggestion I made at the Borough Council meeting of June 6 that if taxes must be repaid to the Cottage Club, the payments should come from the borough’s surplus fund, which I was told amounted to about $1 million dollars.
When it approved the 2007 Borough budget at its May 22 meeting, the council decided to keep the spending reduction of $100,000 for a rainy day instead of returning the cuts to the taxpayers in the form of a lower tax rate. (The Princeton Packet, May 25.) That rainy day is on the near horizon. Time to break out the umbrella.
Linda Sipprelle
Nassau Street
Princeton
Editor’s note:
Ms. Sipprelle is a Republican candidate for Princeton Borough Council.

