LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, Jan. 14
PU’s contributions more than generous
To the editor:
In response to John Clearwater’s fact-and-fiction letter (The Packet, Jan. 11) about Princeton University, here are some facts correcting the fiction he portrayed as fact.
Fact: It is Princeton University policy to pay full taxes on every faculty, staff and married graduate student residence. So, when Mr. Clearwater asks for the number of students attending the Princeton Regional Schools who live in tax-free housing on campus, the answer is zero. Not a single youngster attending the Princeton Regional Schools lives in university tax-exempt housing. Even the university president’s house is on the tax rolls. This policy has been in effect for decades.
In addition, the university recently contributed $500,000 to the Princeton Regional School capital campaign and a $50,000 gift to the Princeton Charter School’s capital campaign. The university also gives a major in-kind gift to Princeton’s schoolchildren by allowing high school students who receive permission from their guidance counselors to take free courses at Princeton University in foreign languages, mathematics, music and computer science.
Fact: Princeton University is the largest taxpayer in both Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. Last year the university paid $2.6 million in the borough and $2.9 million in the township, plus $1.5 million in sewer taxes and $1.3 million in fees. In addition, the university makes an annual contribution each year to the borough. The amount of this contribution has increased substantially each year since 1995. This year it will amount to $814,000, including $250,000 to support borough capital projects. This represents an increase of $173,000 over last year an amount that included a $150,000 contribution to the downtown plaza.
In addition to these annual contributions, the university over the past decade has contributed millions of dollars to other community capital projects, the public schools (as noted above), the public library, affordable housing, open space and parks, the first-aid squad and other community organizations. Also, the university makes dozens of in-kind contributions worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. With strong encouragement, the university also spent $2.5 million to retain a movie theater in downtown Princeton, and more than $1 million to develop the area that includes Thomas Sweet and New York Camera, thus significantly contributing to the viability of the downtown.
The fact is that Princeton University’s contributions to the community measured in dollars and in other ways are large, multi-faceted and growing.
Pam Hersh
Director
Community and State Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton
University payment should be proportional
To the editor:
Princeton University proudly displays on its Web page that it owns 8 million square feet of space on its 500-acre campus. The university, with 4,675 undergraduates and 1,975 graduate students who live eight to 12 months of the year mostly in the tax-exempt university housing, is paying $745,000 (or 9.3 cents per square foot) in "contributions" to Princeton Borough for the year 2005. I understand that this is a voluntary payment by a tax-exempt institution.
In contrast, any taxable property owner in Princeton is currently paying around $5 per square foot in taxes. This covers services and borough costs that regular citizens are carrying that also benefit university students and staff.
The students live more than 80 percent of the time in Princeton and not only use university facilities but generate trash, use water facilities and drive the streets of Princeton. They are eligible to vote in Princeton. They pay fees for their on-campus dormitories or apartments, so from that point of view, the university serves as a landlord.
Any other mortal who stays in Princeton for a day in the few places where one can stay pays a whopping 8-percent occupancy tax for the stay here, on top of the room rate.
The university’s business is education, not housing, and its housing business and taxes should not fall on the shoulders of Princeton residents. The basis for this proposal is not a negation of the tax-free status of the university as a teaching institution, but a recoup proposal for the thousands of residents added to the borough who enjoy benefits for which they do not contribute fairly.
Here are some specific proposals:
1) Students could be assessed taxes for living in Princeton proportional to their lodging costs. Assuming approximate annual housing costs of $4,315 for 4,635 undergraduates, this comes to $20 million. Assuming average housing costs for graduate students of $8,000, this comes to another $15.8 million, for a total of $35.8 million. A simple 8-percent occupancy tax would generate $2.8 million or about 3.84 times what the university is contributing right now.
2) The university could be asked to contribute according to its covered space. Considering the 8 million square feet the university owns, a rate of only $1 per square foot would bring the borough 10 times more than the current contribution.
3) Measure the housing space in square feet the university devotes to undergraduates, graduate students and faculty and provide a tax assessment comparable to that of Princeton Borough residents on the same basis.
4) Students who bring cars, who pay for parking space on the university campus but not for street maintenance in Princeton, should also be assessed a special fee.
Any one of these measures would redistribute the costs of maintaining our community between the attendees at this wealthy institution and our citizens. It would allow us to have the necessary budget to make the infrastructure repairs that our taxpayers deserve and put the town at a par with the university.
Roberto Weinmann
Bayard Lane
Princeton
Four decades later, King’s words ring true
To the editor:
Recently, the members of Not In Our Town, an interfaith, anti-bias Princeton coalition, reflected on the Rev. Martin Luther King’s last sermon before his death, "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution." In this sermon, delivered at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 1968, Dr. King wove together three major concerns of his life’s work racism, poverty and war. Those issues may look different in detail today but in essence they are the same nearly 40 years on.
When he gave this sermon, Dr. King was preparing for the Poor People’s Campaign, so he brought to it a heightened awareness of the needs of real people he had met, on the streets of India and in the overpriced slums of Newark. He spoke of the sin not of being wealthy but of being blind to the poor, and of the arrogance that often comes with the power of wealth. And he mourned the cost of war, in lives lost and resources wasted.
He called for the hard work of community. "No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone, and anyone who feels he can live alone is sleeping through a revolution," he said. "The world in which we live is geographically one. The challenge that we face today is to make it one in terms of brotherhood."
The seeking of justice and peace for the peoples of our small planet is our responsibility now.
Pat Ramirez
Maclean Street
Marietta Taylor
Hartley Avenue
Princeton
Record on NPDC speaks for itself
To the editor:
In my Jan. 4 letter, I never represented that I was involved in the negotiations between the state and Montgomery Township. I quoted from two public documents that spelled out the state’s intention to sell the property "as is" and not clean it up.
In his letter (The Packet, Jan. 11), Tom Vincz, the Treasury Department spokesman, has failed to provide any written source that contradicts these documents. How should the taxpaying public determine the state’s intentions, other than by reading the public record? Now that "the state’s responsibility is clear," as he puts it, perhaps Treasury should come out from behind its cloak of confidentiality and amend its public agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection to include the actual cleanup.
It’s disturbing that Treasury chose to attack me and termed my sharing of public information "irresponsible," while children attend school every day in the midst of the state’s contaminated property. The North Princeton Developmental Center closed in 1998. It’s 2005. The place is a mess. That public record speaks for itself.
Sue Repko
North Shore Court
Montgomery
NPDC negotiations must resume
To the editor:
The Citizens’ Committee for North Princeton Developmental Center would like the residents of Montgomery Township to know that we have not ceased in our efforts to get the state and the township back to the negotiating table. Despite the lawsuit that has been filed, we remain convinced that the best place to resolve NPDC’s future is at the negotiating table.
We urge the state treasurer to find a way to reach out to the township even in the climate of a lawsuit. We remain committed to bringing both parties together to resolve this issue and to structure a deal that is fair to everyone. We have worked tirelessly on NPDC for the last few months and we know that a deal is definitely within reach.
The Citizens’ Committee supports the Montgomery Township Committee’s call for acting Gov. Codey to witness the shambles of the site firsthand. Not only would it be an opportunity for him to see firsthand the magnitude of the mess, but also it would offer Montgomery Township an indication that the state cares about the awful conditions of the property it owns.
The state and Montgomery Township each accuse the other of causing a breakdown in negotiations. The Citizens’ Committee does not care who caused the breakdown. We do care that the negotiations resume again immediately, in earnest, before the dangerous conditions of the site grow worse and threaten still more the safety and welfare of our children and our residents.
The Citizens’ Committee has continued to keep pressure on the state. In our efforts to understand where negotiations have broken down, we met with state Treasurer John McCormac and his staff and hope to meet with him again. We have met with our township officials and will meet with them again also. We requested and were successful in calling for meetings between the Department of Environmental Protection and state and township officials. We have met with elected officials and influential individuals in government to help us get this deal done. We continue to explore the technical issues associated with the site, especially the sewage treatment plant. We have led a letter-writing campaign to acting Gov. Codey asking for his help. We are producing a video, which is our latest effort to reach out to local and regional media outlets. People need to see the deplorable and unacceptable conditions that surround our children every day.
The Citizens’ Committee for NPDC remains committed, as we have always been, in advocating for the immediate transfer of the NPDC property to our township at a fair price. We would like to thank all the residents of Montgomery Township for the letters and e-mails you have sent in to John McCormac and acting Gov. Codey. Your involvement and support have made a difference. We urge all those who have not sent in a letter or made a phone call to do so now. Please visit our Web site for more information at www.NpdcActNow.com.
The Citizens’ Committee for NPDC
Sandra Arnold
Yale Terrace
Patrick Bradley
Wild Azalea Lane
Frank Derby
Greenbriar Court
Michael Fedun
Oxford Circle
Hugh Hurley
Normandy Court
Kevin Lynch
Westminster Court
Wade Martin
Red Oak Way
Debbie Meola
Burnt Hill Road
Richard Smith
Kemper Lakes Court
Valerie Smith
Kemper Lakes Court
Charlie Waltz
Silverthorn Lane
Montgomery
Immigrants should adapt, learn English language
To the editor:
In response to Jasmine Jaywant’s letter to the editor (The Packet, Dec. 14), I would suggest that she think twice before making false accusations toward someone about whom she knows nothing.
Of course I am aware that America was founded by a variety of immigrants who came to this country many years ago and, unlike most of today’s immigrants of any nationality, not only worked very hard but also learned to speak the English language. Furthermore, they expected nothing more than to keep their families fed, clothed and have a roof over their heads. Whereas so many of today’s immigrants (many of whom enter the United States illegally, I might add) quickly learn to work the system instead of learning to adapt, are hired for jobs that require knowledge of the English language, which they do not possess and probably have no intention of learning.
How dare Mrs. Jaywant accuse me of being "self-righteous" and "turning up my nose at those who are simply more recent immigrants"? I simply resent the fact that today’s immigrants expect us to change our customs to theirs and find it unconscionable that this is being allowed to happen.
Let me further enlighten Ms. Jaywant that when my parents and I arrived in this country from France (where I was born), neither my father nor I knew a word of English and we certainly did follow the dictum of "When in Rome. …" My father spent two months at a New England university to learn English and I was sent to summer camp, where I learned to speak fluent English. I also am a very proud American, who has worked hard all my life and adjusted to the American way of life.
If Mrs. Jaywant had read my letter with an open mind, she would not have misinterpreted my point, which was that only one article was written in Spanish in an otherwise English-language newspaper. I see no problem with any of these publications being written in their entirety in a foreign language.
She also should have realized that my complaint was targeted at the fact that when people move to this country (or any other country), they should be prepared to conform to that country’s way of life, which includes learning the language. Isn’t it enough that we already have many foreign-language TV stations, as well as cultural sections in the supermarkets? Should immigrants be unwilling to make the effort to conform, they should return to their own countries and customs and live there happily ever after.
Lastly, Ms. Jaywant is the one who should take stock of her narrow-minded attitude toward me. I do not have, nor have I ever had, an "attitude of contempt and condescension toward people who have had the courage to dream of a better life for themselves and their families" but not at the expense of others.
Nina Boyden
Old Nassau Road
Monroe
Tell the truth, or don’t waste our time
To the editor:
During a Jan. 9 lecture at Princeton University, Hafiz al-Miraz, the Washington bureau chief for Al Jazeera television, said in a question-and-answer session that his network referred to the American forces in Iraq as "multinational forces" or "American forces." In a fuller explanation, he said that until Paul Bremer handed over Iraq to the Iraqis, Al Jazeera had referred to the American presence as "occupation forces," but that the network had since adopted the new terms.
To a question about Al Jazeera’s reporting on its Web site, on Jan. 5, the capture of Al Zarqawi, the bureau chief said the questioner had misread the story. He said Al Jazeera had reported only that a subordinate of Zarqawi had been captured.
In a Jan. 5 story posted online at Al-Jazeera.com, the headline read: "Al Zarqawi captured in Iraq." In the body of the story, Al Jazeera reported: "However, no official report on arresting Al Zarqawi, declared by the U.S. occupation authorities as its ‘target number one’ in Iraq, has yet emerged."
The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Al Jazeera bureau chief was lying. At a time when the open exchange of information and ideas is so rare and so needed, such dissembling is particularly distressing. If you’re going to come to lecture, tell the truth. Otherwise, don’t waste our time.
Lolly O’Brien
Linden Lane
Princeton