To the Editor:

I find it puzzling and inaccurate that you chose to use the term “resistance” in the headline of the page one story [“Schools Face Resistance to Referendum Plan,” Sept. 12] to describe how many citizens in our community are reacting to the fact that an attempt is being made to “railroad” a variety of public school enhancements at a proposed cost of $130 million which these very citizens would have to help fund.  more

To the Editor:

I attended the evening public schools board meeting (the portion open to the public) on September 4 in the comically cramped room provided at the Valley Road building (where the Board members spread out comfortably at tables at one end of the room, while the public made-do with a shamble of available chairs at the other end — sharing space with several video cameras and a sound board engineer with a large table full of equipment, resulting in spill-out of attendees into the hall — some leaving in disgust. It does make one wonder if this is done by design, to deter a larger turnout. As the previous meeting had an identical situation (although this time, more so), you would think that arrangements would have been made to accommodate a larger gathering, as the school referendum is very clearly a hot topic at present.

The meeting had a signup of over 30 speakers (with each having an allowance of two minutes to speak — I was one of them.) While the tone and approaches to the subject at hand varied, the concern and opposition expressed to the $129 million school referendum was palpable and unanimous. more

To the Editor:

We were pleased to see coverage of the Princeton Civil Rights Commission on the front page of the September 5 issue of Town Topics [“Civil Rights Commission Seeks Improvements”]. Last night, the commission began reviewing Princeton Council’s recommendations for procedural changes as submitted by special subcommittee. This committee was appointed by the mayor and Council to review the commission’s first year and conflict resolution proceedings, as called for by guidelines, policies, and procedures adopted by resolution at the time of the commission’s reinstatement by ordinance. Our monthly commission meetings are the third Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Community Room at Witherspoon Hall. more

To the Editor:

I’m wondering what is happening with the recycling and composting programs in Princeton. As I walk around town, I see more and more “non recyclable” items in the yellow bins such as styrofoam, plastic shopping bags, and pizza boxes. We know this pollutes the stream and often necessitates that a greater percentage just gets rerouted to the landfill. Also, I see fewer and fewer new green composting bins on the street and realize that I haven’t received anything in years asking me to join the composting program or reminding me of what can and can’t be recycled and composted. I know this information is available on the township website, but judging from simple observation I don’t think many residents are even aware of that.

I know that the management of the programs has changed hands and I wonder if whoever is in charge of them now even cares about the results or the value of these programs to the community and our environment. I know for a fact that their predecessor did, because I volunteered my time and worked with her to increase awareness and expand participation. more

To the Editor:

A community is built by focusing on people’s gifts, and diversity among community members makes this approach all the more important. With “Welcoming Week” just around the corner [Sept. 14-23], it is a wonderful time to come together to recognize all of the opportunities to connect with and learn from one another. 

As recent transplants from Missouri to the Garden State, my wife and I were delighted to eventually connect with a reclusive neighbor through a hibiscus tree. It was evident from viewing her prolific garden that our neighbor must be a master gardener. One of the stereotypes about people in Missouri is that they won’t hesitate to look you straight in the eye, introduce themselves, and hold a full-fledged conversation whether or not you’re interested. Yet for several years I struggled to figure out how a guy like me from the Bible belt could “break down the middle wall of partition between us” in relation to this seemingly reclusive neighbor. more

To the Editor:

Ms. [Niki] VanAller’s says her organization “favor[s] diplomacy, not war, with Iran and North Korea.” [Mailbox, Aug. 29]. Well, so does everyone else, most of all, anyone in harm’s way. But good intentions do not excuse serial misstatements. “Iran has no nuclear weapons to date,” she claims, despite abundant evidence of Iranian-North Korean collusion to transfer nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology between the two countries. Iran drew on North Korean expertise and used cutouts to construct a defense infrastructure to protect and conceal its military nuclear program. It rejects the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime, and actively schemes to acquire, develop, and deploy a broad range of ballistic missiles and space launch capabilities.

Nor is it true that “the U.S. has over 7,000 of them,” i.e., nuclear weapons. The correct number is 1,350 warheads says the Arms Control Association, slightly less than Russia’s 1,444. Whether 1,350 is the ideal number “useful for deterrence” is unknowable, but the deterrent effect is indisputable, for which Ms. VanAller should be immensely grateful. more

To the Editor:

The upcoming November election is one of crucial importance to our nation at the local, state, county, and national levels. Progressive values are under attack. Gains in health care, in environmental safeguards, and in protections for our most vulnerable citizens have been rolled back. We need representatives who advocate for a compassionate society, not a nation governed by fear. 

Local and regional governments act as a pipeline to, and bulwark against, the divisive tactics at the federal level that have set religious, ethnic, and cultural groups against each other. more

To the Editor:


In about eight weeks the voters of Princeton will have the opportunity to cast their votes for candidates seeking national, state, and Mercer County offices as well as for two candidates for Princeton Council. In light of recent events, our attention as Democrats has been drawn to the need to support Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and House to create a bulwark against the actions of a president who upholds neither his oath of office nor the rule of law. However, the quality of the people that we elect to Princeton Council is also important as our local elected officials make the decisions that affect the everyday lives of Princeton residents. Two current members of Princeton Council, Heather Howard and Lance Liverman, both progressive Democrats, will retire from elected office at the end of this year. Eve Niedergang and Dwaine Williamson are the two progressive Democrats who are running to succeed Lance and Heather, and they have been endorsed by the Princeton Democratic Party following their convincing win in the Democratic primary election. Both Dwaine and Eve have participated in the life of the community as volunteers and have the knowledge, the experience, and the commitment to be effective members of Council. They are committed to achieving smart, sustainable growth, being fiscally responsible stewards of our public funds, and strengthening the core values of our welcoming and inclusive Princeton community. As members of Princeton Council they will provide a voice for all members of our community.

I ask you to join me in voting for Eve Niedergang and Dwaine Williamson, progressive Democrats for Princeton Council, in the general election on November.

BERNIE MILLER

Governors Lane

To the Editor:

This fall Princeton residents will vote on a crucial referendum for our schools and our children, as some of the cramped, aging school facilities have become an impediment to teaching, learning, safety, and wellness. At PHS for example, anxiety-producing school shooting drills now occur regularly, but guidance space and security remain inadequate. Classrooms are often sweltering or frigid due to HVAC problems, even during tests. Classroom and cafeteria space are insufficient, while three large, unused outside atria remain frustratingly inaccessible. And as more multi-family dwellings are built and new families continue to move to town, utilizing such capacity becomes even more necessary. Students, staff, teachers, and administrators do a truly fantastic job, but they know that critical repairs, updates, and expansion are needed right now. Referendum questions 1 and 2 address these and other pressing issues.

Some residents assert that facilities don’t matter in student outcomes, citing excellence in our schools. Teachers, parents, students, and demographics contribute to these strong outcomes, but they do not obviate the need for safe, sound buildings and adequate room for the people inside them. I am curious if those who say facilities don’t matter would choose to tolerate similarly poor heating, cooling, or crowded conditions in their homes.

I don’t especially like tax increases. But I stay informed and involved, and I feel confident in the capabilities of those entrusted to manage our schools. I have found the elected Board, administration, and teachers to be generally accessible, wise, and willing to answer questions thoughtfully. I also see with my own eyes that critical HVAC and security improvements, and capacity expansions, are necessary NOW, and would urge anyone in doubt to request a tour of the high school as a case in point (PHStourguide@ gmail.com). This wonderful high school, which Princeton takes great pride in, was built in 1927. Although there have been additions, much of that building is just plain old and it shows; it needs updating.

Some have noted that other towns require less expensive updates — but most neighboring schools are much newer than ours. I would also add that the vitriolic Cranbury discussion appears to be a bit of a red herring, as the needs being addressed in the referendum are not changed by the presence or absence of a small, declining number of students from Cranbury, while their tuition payments contribute meaningfully to the district’s operating budget.

It would be unwise to vote no on the referendum in hopes that a future analysis will result in a meaningfully better, cheaper plan. Waiting will almost certainly result in increased maintenance, construction, and financing costs, while leaving our children in sub-par facilities for longer. As Princeton residents, we’ve signed on to vote, pay taxes, and most of all to live in a community where the safety and education of children are consistently top priorities. I encourage you to vote YES on the referendum this fall and help the schools fulfill their mission for our children.

LORI WEIR

Stuart Road East

To the Editor:

I served as a member of the Princeton Regional Board of Education over 30 years ago (1981-1987). We had a very hard time dealing with declining enrollment and faced tough decisions about which neighborhood elementary schools to close. This experience does not qualify me to answer the current question of how to deal with increasing enrollment, especially at the high school. However, I learned one lesson that may be of use today: don’t lose sight of our mission to provide the best education to the town’s children within the financial constraints of the community’s resources. It would have been easy, but wrong, to keep all four schools open and simply bill our taxpayers for that luxury.

Today, I have serious misgivings about how our Board of Education is working through the knotty issue of enrollment changes. Specifically, I am disappointed that the current Board appears to have renewed a ten-year sending-receiving relationship with Cranbury prior to deciding how to address significant expansion of the high school. The renewal decision removes one major means of reducing the enrollment problem that necessitates such expansion. Was this a backdoor attempt to force approval of the bond? Did the Board simply presume that the community would approve the construction program before public discussion? Why wasn’t the Cranbury decision delayed until after the community voted on the proposed bond? The order in which these two major issues are being addressed seems backwards at best and raises a concern about the Board’s sensitivity to the financial constraints of our citizens.

HARRY LEVINE

Newlin Road

To the Editor:
We have been Princeton taxpayers for nearly three decades and stand vehemently opposed to the proposed Princeton BOE referendum.

As retirees on fixed incomes, we are now ruthlessly being driven out of Princeton after nearly 30 years of residence here. Without the sewer fee, the taxes on our very modest, obsolete home are now approaching $14,000 annually, an outrageous sum in exchange for the very poor level of municipal services that we receive and a rapidly aging and inadequate infrastructure in comparison to other communities with much, much lower combined taxes.

We have examined the school budgets of a dozen high performing school districts with similar demographics in the northern half of the state, including neighboring West Windsor-Plainsboro and Montgomery. Having lived in North Jersey for much of our lives, we know for a fact that the cost of living is consistently higher there than in this part of Central Jersey, yet the per pupil cost for Princeton even without any proposed increases far exceeds that of any high performing district that we examined. The results of our comparative analysis have been widely distributed throughout the community and have been updated earlier this year based on available NJ DOE data.

We respectfully request that the Princeton Board of Education NOT increase our already burdensome, if not impossible, property taxes with additional costs that provide no apparent benefit to the public school students of Princeton.

FRANK WIENER, VIRGINIA DIACONU

Loomis Court