By: centraljersey.com
The Princeton Packet and Hank Kalet, author of the recent article entitled "Equal protection will rule" (Aug. 13), are to be praised and thanked for publishing and writing, respectively, regarding equality and justice for all.
I am a 73-ear old man in a 42-year committed relationship with another man, age 74. I am a retired public school employee with 34 years of service to the children of New Jersey. I never received an evaluation lower than "Outstanding."
Some of my relatives came to New Jersey in 1765 and yet I am not allowed to marry my life partner and therefore am denied full American citizenship.
I had a first cousin who was married and divorced five times with complete legal approval of state and federal governments and enjoyed full citizenship. Heterosexual jailed prisoners can marry. I cannot.
How can these obvious disparities be taking place? Fear! Most people who oppose equality for all deny they are fearful. However, they are afraid of letting go of their world paradigm that says they are right and all others are wrong. Belief is not necessarily truth. I can believe the earth is flat but that does not make it so.
There are others who do not actively oppose marriage equality but nevertheless contribute to the perpetuation of injustice. They are the well meaning, good people who are busy going about their lives not particularly aware of the inequality of others. These are the people to whom I appeal, not the fearful, bigoted uninformed few. So if you are Jewish, atheist, Roman Catholic, secularist, Protestant, agnostic, Islamist, Unitarian Universalist or Orthodox, please speak up boldly for equality and justice. Care about the pain, suffering and inequality that people like me experience. Speak up now! Speak out like Hank Kalet and The Princeton Packet.
Russell McTague Lawrenceville
Best energy option is natural gas
To the editor:
By my definition, a genius is someone who recognizes an opportunity and exploits it effectively, when others don’t even see the opportunity. President Obama has an opportunity to be a genius. The vehicle could be natural gas.
In the United States, we have ample quantities of natural gas. It is inexpensive and for a given amount of energy, produces less than half the greenhouse gases that come from coal. To push the substitution for coal more rapidly, we could give the coal producers a subsidy not to mine coal. After all, we’ve been subsidizing farmers for years not to produce crops. Or we could subsidize the conversion of a coal plant producing electricity to a natural gas plant.
By collecting and sequestering the greenhouse gases produced from natural gas plants, we can make natural gas the environmental equivalent of solar and wind energy. I don’t know what the cost for this collection system would be, but I would guess it would compete favorably with the costs of wind and solar powers and implementation would proceed much more rapidly.
Natural gas is now used as a transportation fuel in a number of trucks and buses. There are commercial processes for converting natural gas to gasoline and diesel fuel. Natural gas, in terms of energy equivalents, sells for about $28/barrel; crude oil is about $78/barrel. I don’t know what the cost of converting natural gas to liquid fuels is, but my guess is that it would be less that the above $50/barrel differential.
President Obama should convene a group of experts to consider the above suggestions. Some of the above suggestions will not stand scrutiny from an environmental and economic standpoint but additional ideas may result from this study.
S.L. Meisel Princeton
Real estate values and revaluation
To the editor:
Before the recent revaluations in Princeton Borough and Township we might have asked: what would be the desirable outcome of the process from a realtor’s point of view? Understand this and we understand what is going on. The big houses and lots in the Western section, for example, were selling very slowly or not at all. Their sale prices had ballooned out of sight in the real estate frenzy of 2000-2007. The taxes on these properties were large, also discouraging sales, with no sales, no commissions for the realtors, no renovation upgrades for the builders, no mortgages for the bankers and lawyers. In the John Witherspoon neighborhood and some other "middle class" sections of town, prices were rising but were still too low to make much money on a sale. New development was stymied by pesky long-term owners who wanted to stay in town.
Presto! What happened in the revaluation? The taxes in the Western section went down – which will encourage sales and upgrades, and the taxes in John Witherspoon et. al. went up, encouraging gentrification, teardowns, increased development. Residents in these neighborhoods will be forced to sell with such high new taxes. Sales will be at higher prices, as will the commissions. Houses will give way to McMansions.
Simply put, the revaluation has greased the wheels of a stuck money-making machine, in both these locations and all over town.
Municipal officials have admitted that it was expected that in the method followed some calculations would go up, some down, some would stay the same. Exactly Wrong. If any valuations go up in a coherent community such as ours due to a rise in prices – actually on a national as well as local level – all should rise. Or, the tax increases should be spread and shared – and balanced against any decreases. And in our case, that also includes the largest landholder in town.
Who benefits from this governmental-real estate industry-complex scam? The wealthy, the realtors, the builders, the bankers and lawyers, the largest landholder in town, the tax collector.
Every official – from the county on down – who fails to attack this giveaway at the root, who believes that the results can merely be tweaked here and there, who says to make individual pleas for redress should be voted out of office. Throw the revaluation out: its premises are wrong.
Michael Mostoller Princeton
Support Sipprelle over incumbent
To the editor:
In the minute it takes you to read this, the US Government will go another $3.4 Million in debt. It is happening every minute of every hour of every day. $1.8 trillion of new debt this year alone. If you believe this is a sound policy then re-elect the congressman that voted for this debt in the first place.
On the other hand, if you think that increasing the size of the Federal Government by 11 percent in the last year was the wrong thing to do, if you think that the "Health Care Bill" is an unprecedented intrusion into the way you live your life or if you think the Trillion Dollar "Stimulus Bill" was an ineffective and counterproductive use of your money, fire the politicians that voted for it. If you think increasing the Federal debt to levels that would make Greece blush is insane, change the makeup of Congress.
Our current congressman voted for all of the above. We have a choice to make. career politician or businessman? Career politician or citizen representative? Protector of the bureaucrats or protector of the Constitution? I think the choice is clear. Scott Sipprelle offers an alternative to the tax, borrow and spend policies currently in force in Washington. Rush Holt offers more of the same. This coming election is your chance to stop the spending and the incredible intrusions into your life that have passed Congress in the last 18 months. Visit Scott’s website www.supportscott2010.com to read his solutions to what are mainly government caused problems. You owe it to your kids and grandkids.
Jack A Frohbieter Cranbury
Why won’t Rep. Holt agree to debate?
To the editor:
Scott Sipprelle, the Republican candidate for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District has repeatedly challenged Rush Holt, the incumbent, to debate the serious issues currently facing our nation, but Holt has refused to respond. Why, I ask, does Holt refuse?
If we want to live in a democracy, we must preserve our freedoms. If we want to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the issues. Being informed on the issues require that we become acquainted with alternative points of view. In a democratic society there must be public debate between those who would lead us.
So why does Rush Holt refuse to debate? What does he fear? You decide.
Beverly T. Elston Princeton

