PRINCETON: Time to end one-party rule on council

Marc I. Malberg, Princeton
The Democrat candidates for the Princeton Council are both incumbent, not surprising in a one-party system, and express pride in what they have accomplished.
Ms. Howard confesses that she did not think that consolidation of the Princetons was supposed to “save a whole bunch of money.” In that respect she certainly can be proud that it saved no money at all. So what is the source of this pride that she shares with Mr. Liverman, who apparently also had no intention of savings for the taxpayers of Princeton? “… more efficient government …” she says.
How is efficiency measured if not in terms of lower operating costs resulting from increased productivity, which leads to reduction in labor cost or expanded services? Do we have more services than before consolidation? Do we have less crime? The two police forces were both excellent prior to consolidation, internal squabbles not withstanding, and now maintain the same level of protection with a reduced force, yet no savings. Is this efficiency at work?
Since consolidation our property tax has increased 7.9 percent while the inflation rate, according to the federal government, has increased 2.3 percent. That’s over triple!
The whole point of consolidation in any industry, governance included, is elimination of duplication to achieve savings, whether “a whole bunch” or even a little. When the result of the “efficiency” is an outrageous tax increase compared to inflation rates, there is no cause for pride and a serious call to eliminate the one-party government approach in Princeton.
In addition, Ms Howard is an employee of the university, our local bully. With the mayor tied to the College of New Jersey, oops, sorry, now Princeton University, who is in control? 
Marc I. Malberg 
Princeton 
    The Democrat candidates for the Princeton Council are both incumbent, not surprising in a one-party system, and express pride in what they have accomplished.
    Ms. Howard confesses that she did not think that consolidation of the Princetons was supposed to “save a whole bunch of money.” In that respect she certainly can be proud that it saved no money at all. So what is the source of this pride that she shares with Mr. Liverman, who apparently also had no intention of savings for the taxpayers of Princeton? “… more efficient government …” she says.
    How is efficiency measured if not in terms of lower operating costs resulting from increased productivity, which leads to reduction in labor cost or expanded services? Do we have more services than before consolidation? Do we have less crime? The two police forces were both excellent prior to consolidation, internal squabbles not withstanding, and now maintain the same level of protection with a reduced force, yet no savings. Is this efficiency at work?
    Since consolidation our property tax has increased 7.9 percent while the inflation rate, according to the federal government, has increased 2.3 percent. That’s over triple!
    The whole point of consolidation in any industry, governance included, is elimination of duplication to achieve savings, whether “a whole bunch” or even a little. When the result of the “efficiency” is an outrageous tax increase compared to inflation rates, there is no cause for pride and a serious call to eliminate the one-party government approach in Princeton.
    In addition, Ms Howard is an employee of the university, our local bully. With the mayor tied to the College of New Jersey, oops, sorry, now Princeton University, who is in control? 
Marc I. Malberg 
Princeton 