R. Moody of West Windsor
It’s mind boggling to learn that West Windsor Township has finally voted “Yes” to the inane plan to erect a village transit center within close proximity and earshot of the Princeton Junction train station. Where else has a development of this eclectic nature been built around a crowded railroad hub? Surely no one would be so foolish as to develop a transit center — incorporating retail, commercial, residential and parking spaces — in such a potentially congested location.
This development will almost certainly add to the already unacceptable traffic delays and cause further chaotic crowding in the school system. The residents of West Windsor will be faced with at least 11,000 more cars, additional crowding in the schools and lengthy roadway and parking lot traffic jams.
All this will be caused by the building of at least 500 residential units — a number which could grow to upwards of 1,500 — and many retail stores and commercial offices. The stores will no doubt draw many shoppers from out of town and more commuters will use the station. This will add to further overcrowding on the trains and cause long delays during commuting hours.
Why would anyone with a modicum of sense design a so called “village” (traditionally defined as “a small group of dwellings in a rural area”) so close to a railroad station that already suffers from rush hour congestion? Amazingly, the majority of public speakers at the council meeting on March 23 were in favor of a “Yes” vote and, in the main, two unconvincing reasons were presented. One was the need for a sense of place in Princeton Junction. The other was the belief that the council’s plan, instead of a future ceveloper’s plan, was the lesser of two evils.
If a sense of place is required, why oh why don’t we clean up the Route 571 Corridor eyesore by installing boutiques, pedestrian walkways, bubbling fountains with flowers, pretty ponds, cycling paths and, above all, an attractive bistro/cafe or two where townspeople can gather. That would give us the requested sense of place without a massive overload to the infrastructure. Instead, we have to live with 5 banks, 3 gas stations, 3 realtor’s offices and ghastly power lines dominating the ugliest section of the Junction.
Will anyone rush to buy or rent a condo or apartment on top of the busiest railroad line in the northeast with it’s incessant noise from rushing trains? And is it likely that the retail space will be profitably leased in today’s financial climate? The good news is that it will take years before building action is commenced and by then the council may have woken up and reversed it’s crazy decision.
Can someone please give me one sensible positive reason for going ahead with this potentially disastrous white elephant? Charles Morgan was the only “No” vote and he should be strongly supported in the next mayoral election in the hope that this foolish decision can be reversed once and for all.
R. Moody
West Windsor
Corzine’s budget
and state colleges
To the editor:
The austere budget proposed by Governor Corzine contains a cut of five percent in state appropriations to the nine state colleges and universities. Collectively, the colleges/universities would lose $13.8 million, bringing the state appropriations down to the same level (in dollars, not adjusted for inflation) as the institutions received in FY 2000. This represents the 7th cut this decade. New Jersey has ranked near the bottom of the 50 states in higher education investment for more than five years.
The budget proposal is positive in addressing college affordability by increasing funding for New Jersey’s key student aid program that reaches many low and middle income students: the Tuition Aid Grant (TAG) program.
Funding in the budget proposal for employee fringe benefits, often displayed as a budget “increase” for higher education, does not come to the colleges, but stays in state accounts to pay for mandated health, retirement and other benefits.
While college leaders acknowledge the governor’s earnest efforts in difficult economic times, and important new support for student financial aid, this budget has little promise for the increased investment needed to move New Jersey in the positive direction envisioned by President Obama: making the United States number one globally in college degree production, within ten years. Demand for public higher education in New Jersey is at an all-time high, and the colleges are serving 98,000 students, 20,000 more than a decade ago.
Today, more than ever, higher education is universally viewed as a vital component to economic recovery. Nearly one-half of all New Jersey college graduates, annually, are from the nine state colleges and universities with applications at an all time high. The institutions rank third nationally for similar colleges among the states, in degree productivity.
How state negotiated salary increases are handled remains a major area of the budget proposal that requires further analysis. To mitigate the cuts the proposal anticipates savings through salary freezes. But the institutions cannot unilaterally impose such freezes or furloughs without changes in the labor contracts and tenure laws. These would have to be accomplished by the state through negotiation or mandated by legislation. For FY 2010, the nine state colleges are obligated to pay roughly $25-30 million in mandated salary increases for bargaining unit members, unless the state is successful in winning or imposing a salary freeze.
The mandated increases come in two parts: a state negotiated cost of living increase (about 3.5 percent) and automatic state mandated increment increases (about 3.5 to 4.0 percent), both affecting about 70 percent of all employees.
Overall, New Jersey’s budget situation places even greater pressure on public college tuition in order to meet citizens’ demand for high quality instruction, facilities and safe institutions.
State colleges/universities understand they must continue to manage effectively, by becoming more productive, while protecting access and quality for students. Within the past year, college presidents, working together through ASCU, have made public commitments in this regard through the New Jersey College Promise and Nine Strong for a Stronger New Jersey projects. They continue to strive to meet the mounting demand for affordable higher education, which is characteristic during economic downturns.
Paul Shelly
NJ Association of State Colleges
& Universities
Trenton
