Multiple signers
To the editor:
With regard to the decision of Princeton Council to settle the lawsuit with AvalonBay and allowing the demolition of the hospital site to proceed, there were questions asked that still have not been completely answered.
It remains uncertain as to who would be sued and who will pay in the event that someone becomes ill. Is it the council’s position that the municipality, including its citizens, are held harmless in the event of future litigation involving any adverse effect that may result from demolition and construction of the project?
Most compelling is the concern for workers on the site, citizens living near by, children, teachers and staff who will be at Community Park School, Henry Pannell Center and Princeton High School. As the hospital site is in the center of town many students will be walking past the site on their way to and from local schools. Many of these people lack financial resources and may not understand how to proceed with filing a lawsuit against a national developer.
Imagine if something goes wrong or if in the long term someone develops an illness resulting from possible contamination. Will AvalonBay defend themselves simply by saying that they complied with the developers agreement authorized by the municipality?
Did anyone consult with NJ Department of Community Affairs Board of Professional Engineers, and land surveyors to review the specific clauses in the licensing laws as to the ethical responsibilities that our engineering staff has regarding their rights to refuse to sign a demolition permit, that in their opinion is potentially harmful to the health and safety of the public?
In advance of their decision to settle, did the mayor or any council member obtain the summary judgment documents and then actually read them?
Did council confer with the LSRP (Licensed Site Remediation Professionals) board to review the testimony provided by AvalonBay’s environmental expert in their surprising request for summary judgment? Shouldn’t the validity of their statement that they followed American Society of Testing Materials standards be questioned, given the fact that they did not file an Open Public Records Act request with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection during the Phase I analysis? Had they done so, wouldn’t they have been able to ascertain the existence of incinerator use on site?
Has Princeton Council been in contact with NJDEP Division of Remediation Management to discuss the plan for soil which is located under the 2nd incinerator room to be moved to another location on site without testing and the fact that the site of the original incinerator is being ignored altogether?
Considering that demolition of the hospital site is the largest in Princeton’s history, with unknown levels of contamination, members of council should have carefully weighed each the aforementioned concerns, strived diligently to obtain additional information and not been cajoled into rushing, in their effort to do everything that they can to protect the health and safety of all citizens.
Jim Floyd, Linda Auerbach, Eric & Minnie Craig, Paul & Yoshie Driscoll, Marco Gottardis, Stephen Griffies, Ken Gumpert, Bernadine Hines, Howard & Rita Levy, Audrey & James Mack, Susanna Monceau, Jean Myer, Shirleen McDowell Parker, Shirley Satterfield, Louis Slee, Hope VanCleaf , Jeff York
Princeton
