February 1, 2012

To the Editor: 

Many in the Princeton community share Borough Council’s frequently stated belief that shortening the Dinky is ill advised and a far greater loss to the community than is the gain of an unfettered pedestrian plaza to the university. A brand new station farther away would hardly lead to increased ridership. Indeed, those who walk to the Dinky would have to walk an additional 30,000 aggregate miles per year.

One fact is widely acknowledged, however: a straight-shot Dinky originating at Nassau Street with increased trips to meet virtually every train at the Junction would increase ridership and, therefore, add to the shuttle’s utility to the community.

The zigzag easement offered by the university is utterly useless. The principal factor leading to greater transit use is reduced travel time. The increased trip time via the zigzag connection would add an additional 40 hours yearly to a Dinky commuter’s time on the train.

Committing municipal resources to help fund a transportation consultant’s effort to craft arguments to support the university’s selfish intransigence seems indefensible. If logical light-rail routing is denied by fiat, the only other legitimate single-vehicle option to reach Nassau Street is the justly maligned BRT.

Concerning the pending suit challenging the interpretation of the 1984 station sales contract between the university and NJ Transit, the contract as written does not allow, nor does it contemplate, any move of the terminus beyond what has already been effected, and that the counter-interpretation contrived by the University and NJ Transit is contrary to the public interest.

So far there are at least two important proposals to save the current Dinky service at no cost to the municipality: The offer by Henry Posner III to finance the re-acquisition of the right-of-way through eminent domain, and my company’s proposal for converting the Dinky to light rail and extending it to Nassau Street under the federal “Very Small Starts” program. Both require that the ordinance to preserve the Dinky right-of-way as a transit zone be reintroduced and enacted quickly. Such a step could moot the suit challenging the contract interpretation by effectively substituting the community’s interpretation for that of the university and NJ Transit.

As for the danger of a light rail vehicle sharing a pedestrian plaza, there is much precedent. Suffice it to say, the charge to the design engineers would be to make it the world’s safest.

A unique aspect of the new Dinky would be its becoming the only rail-transit service in the country to run without an operating subsidy. Perhaps NJ Transit could be convinced to divert a part of the $1 million per year in Dinky subsidy foregone toward enhancing NJ Transit bus service or other transit options in and around town.

Allowing the university to thwart this exemplary opportunity through sheer, self-serving will would diminish Princeton forever.

Rodney Fisk
Birch Avenue

To the Editor:

Last Thursday night we attended the third Planning Board meeting on the application of The Institute for Advanced Study to build 15 much-needed faculty residences on their land adjacent to Princeton Battlefield Park. It was a tedious continuation of the efforts of the Princeton Battlefield Society to prevent approval through delaying tactics and obfuscation, raising issues not relevant to consideration by this governing body.

This project meets the requirements of our zoning regulations without the need for variations. The IAS development plan carries out the intent of our Land Use Ordinance by accepting cluster zoning options. The application of these guidelines minimize land disturbance, reduce utility runs, limit storm water run-off by reducing impervious surfaces of roads and walks, and create large areas of commonly-owned open space. This is an excellent example of a creative land-use ordinance at work.

In our opinion the current nearly 65 acres of Battle Field Park, more than a third of which was obtained from The Institute for Advanced Study, is more than adequate to commemorate, and to exhibit the scope of, this important battle. In fact the proposed plan will enlarge the park by the inclusion of 13 acres of public-access open space adjacent to the park as well as extend visual access by the relocation the bordering tree line some 200 feet back from its present location.

It is sad to contemplate the extent to which visitor appreciation of the battle could have been enhanced through better interpretative signage, pathways, interactive dioramas, and the like had the Princeton Battlefield Society spent their money for such facilities rather than for attorney and witness fees.

Tom and Peggy Fulmer
Hunt Drive

To the Editor:

Historian John Shy was quoted on the IAS website that “the battle proper was about fifteen minutes of intense fighting in the area of the present park.” So by IAS standards, for the land to be preserved it would have to be part of the “battle proper.” Indeed, the contended IAS land is in the area of the present park and in fact it borders it. The IAS-hired historians have harped on the location of the Sawmill Road to cast doubt on the Milner Report’s finding. However, what is not in doubt is that the target of the American attack was the area around the William Clark farm. Simply put, to attack that area the U.S. forces had to cross, while fighting and dying, over Institute land. The Princeton Battlefield Society is not asking for anything but the promise of no development on a very small tract of land. The limited amount of archaeology done by both parties strongly suggests that the contended IAS land was the site of the counterattack and that further archaeology will prove this. Instead of building on this tract, why can’t the IAS either subsidize the mortgages of faculty or better yet, swap out IAS-owned and conserved land that is not in dispute? Finally, the Institute’s housing proposal will not only ruin forever a part of the Princeton Battlefield, but will also ruin the historical landscape of the existing park and that is unacceptable.

Matt White
Sewell, New Jersey

To the Editor:

In Pixar’s movie Cars, Lightning McQueen rescues the town of Radiator Springs from economic devastation caused by the nearby freeway bypassing the town. NJDOT is implementing a “trial” bypass of Princeton to severely limit access to Princeton from the rest of Mercer County via Route 1. This directly impacts Princeton merchants as well as Mercer’s Route 1 merchants who have customers that return home via Route 1 and Princeton. In the recent NJDOT town meeting on the Princeton Route 1 bypass trial, it was made clear that NJDOT is only interested in measuring an improvement in how many more cars could bypass Princeton, when the measurement test really should be whether the economic harm to Mercer’s Princeton and Route 1 businesses outweighs any improvement in traffic flow. If NJDOT is not interested in coming up with a way to measure the economic harm to Mercer’s local businesses, maybe businesses can use the courts to help with generating metrics to measure Mercer’s economic harm during the “trial” period. After all in the children’s story Cars, it took a judge who cared about local small businesses and a court order for Lightning McQueen to realize the economic harm caused by the bypass before he could rescue the town.

Donald Cox
South Harrison Street

TT Clem Fiori

“Andre Kertesz is my favorite photographic artist. He was doing everything with the camera, painterly things, imaginative pictures with reflections, and studio photography. He experimented with whatever the camera could do at the time.” —Clem Fiori, Blawenberg

TT Charles McVicker

“Lyonel Feininger. He was an influence of mine when I was in art in college. I just saw the retrospective of his work at The Whitney and fell in love with his work all over again.”
—Charles McVicker, Princeton

TT Debbie Endersby Gwazda

“Henri Matisse. I just love all his bright colors juxtaposed next to other colors, red, blue, green, and white.”
—Debbie Endersby Gwazda, Pennington

TT Kathy Bob Denby

Kathy: “Mary Cassatt. I love the Mother and Baby.”
Bob: “Photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, for his ability to capture the decisive moment.”
—Kathy and Bob Denby, Skillman

TT Jim Barbara Webb

Jim: ”Constantin Brancusi, an abstract sculptor, speaks to me.”
Barbara: “My favorite artist is Jim Webb, who happens to be my husband. He’s a ceramic artist and started under Toshiko Takaezu at Princeton University.”
—Jim and Barbara Webb, Hopewell

TT Peter Lindenfeld

“Lonni Sue Johnson. She illustrated the book that I wrote. It is the first professional work that she did after she got ill. She is one artist I totally love.” —Peter Lindenfeld, Princeton

MUSICIAN AND MENTOR: “Having been the organist at First Baptist Church for so many years is something I am very proud of. It means a lot to me, and I have also always liked helping young people.” Princeton resident Dorothy Alexander has many memories of church and community.

It was Sunday afternoon, December 7, 1941 (“a date that will live in infamy”), and Dorothy Fletcher, age 13, was playing the organ at First Baptist Church of Princeton.

She did not know of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii until she went home, and her mother told her of the event.

That historic episode propelled the United States into World War II, and Dorothy witnessed life on the Princeton homefront during those war years.

“A lot of the boys and young men I knew went into the service,” she recalls. “And there were a lot of things going on in town. I remember the Victory Gardens people had, and there was a big Community Garden on Birch Avenue, near where we lived. There was also rationing for butter and eggs, and other food. I went shopping for my mother — there were three grocery stores right on the corner near our house.”

Special Services

Dorothy, now Mrs. Alexander, also remembers blackouts, “when we had to be sure the shades were down and the curtains closed, so no light would show. We would also have special services in church, including when someone from the church had been killed in the war. When it was over, there were big celebrations. The bells rang, and everyone was very excited. The American Legion was involved, and the boys at the University really celebrated big-time!”

Those war years are important memories for Mrs. Alexander, but in fact, her recollections of life in Princeton go back well before World War II.

Born in 1928, she was the daughter of Robert and Mary Fletcher. The family lived at the corner of Leigh and John Streets, and Dorothy had one half-brother, John Fletcher.

“He was a lot older than I, and I really looked up to him,” says Mrs. Alexander. “He made sure that I never wanted for anything. I also had aunts and uncles on John Street.”

Dorothy attended the Witherspoon School for Colored Children on Quarry Street (now the Waxwood Apartments) from kindergarten through eighth grade. She enjoyed school, especially anything to do with music. “I remember some of the teachers I liked at school, including Mrs. Potter in kindergarten, Mrs. Griggs in first grade, and Mr. Lawrence in seventh grade. I looked up to them.

“We had a piano at home,” she adds, “and as a little girl, I started playing and liked it right away. Then I began taking lessons in the fifth grade. I really liked to practice.”

Homework and Music

Dorothy’s father died when she was five, and her mother, who had to work, made certain that Dorothy  paid attention to homework and church in addition to music.

“I always had to do my homework. My mother was very definite about that,” says Mrs. Alexander, with a smile. “She also started taking me to First Baptist Church when I was a little girl. Because of that, the church has meant a lot to me. I was baptized when I was 13 by Pastor William T. Parker.”

On weekends, Dorothy and her friends enjoyed going to the YMCA, and as she says, “It was very near where I lived. We also all played outside a lot, and I especially liked baseball. On Saturdays, we’d all go to the movies.”

In 1942, she became a freshman at Princeton High School, where she sang alto in the choir. She liked English class because she enjoyed reading so much, but didn’t care for math. “Not at all! But my music teacher was very important to me.”

Dorothy was very busy during those high school years, and continued to be active at First Baptist Church. Not only did she sing in the Youth and Senior Choirs, she also played the piano for Sunday School and for choir rehearsals. She was extremely proud to be chosen as assistant organist during that time.

“Also, when I was in high school, I went to Westminster Choir College on Saturdays and had organ and piano lessons. This was a great opportunity for me.”

High School Graduation

After graduation in 1946, Dorothy worked in the laundry department at Princeton Hospital, and also attended Westminster, studying voice for two years.

“I had to leave Westminster, though, when my mother died, and I had to work to keep the house,” she explains. “But then, I met William Alexander, who had come to Princeton from Virginia, and who joined First Baptist Church. We were married in the late 1940s, and I continued to work at the hospital and play the organ at church.”

Three sons, William, Jr., Roland, and Dennis, were born, and then, Mrs. Alexander was left to be their sole support when her husband died of a sudden heart attack. “The boys were still very little, and I was determined that they would get an education, and be brought up the right way. I wanted them to have values and grow up to be productive citizens.

“I made sure they went to Sunday School and did their homework. It was hard work for a single woman, and I raised them alone, although I did have help from the church.”

Throughout these years, Mrs. Alexander continued to work at the hospital and as organist at First Baptist. Keeping a very busy schedule, she nevertheless always had time to help young people.

“I’ve known Dorothy, whom I call ‘Mrs. A,’ for 42 years,” says Princeton Township Committee member Lance Liverman, who is also chairman of the trustees of First Baptist Church. “I grew up in the church, and went to school with her son, Dennis. She has been like a mother to me and a friend. She’s been more like a teacher to so many youth at First Baptist. She gives her time, energy, and her love to young people.

Surrogate Mom

“I think she is a treasure, not just to the church but to the community. She is extremely important to me — a dear, dear soul. One of the reasons I’ve done well in my life is because she was a surrogate mom to me. You don’t always know the impact you have had on someone — it can just be a kind act. That was Dorothy Alexander. She’d say to me, ‘Do well. Keep yourself together.’ It means more than we know.”

Mrs. Alexander, who has worked tirelessly — and enthusiastically — for the church, has received many awards and honors, including the “Distinguished Service Award” from the Deacons’ Union of Trenton and Vicinity; the Service Appreciation Award “For Your Faithfulness in Using Your Musical Gifts to Serve the Lord as State Organist of the New Jersey Convention of Progressive Baptist”; and the Progressive Women’s Fellowship of First Baptist Church, among many others.

She has traveled all over the country to play the organ at church conventions, very often with her friend of many years, Princeton resident Ida Belle Dixon, long-time member of First Baptist and former president of Progressive National Baptist Women’s Department of New Jersey (a post previously held by Mrs. Alexnder).

“I met Dorothy in 1937, when I first came to Princeton. She was just a young girl, playing the organ at the church,” recalls Mrs. Dixon. “She was so dedicated, never missing a Sunday — I think her mother made sure of that! She just loved music; played for the Senior Choir, the Gospel Chorus, and Male Chorus, as well as for the Sunday School.

“Her contribution to First Baptist is so essential, I hardly have words for it. Music is just her life. I’ve been closely connected with her because of the choir in which I sang, too. Also, Dorothy and her son Dennis would sometimes sing duets for church events. She had a beautiful alto voice. She was and is one of my favorites at the church. My friendship with Dorothy is everlasting.”

Having been born and reared in Princeton, Mrs. Alexander looks upon her home town with great affection. It is not only the location of her church, but also the home of long-time friends and the source of so many memories.

Helping Hand

“I wouldn’t want to live in any other place. Princeton is still a town where we know each other, and there are a lot of good people. I have many friends here. Of course, the town has grown. There are many more people and much more traffic.

“One of the things I really think about is that people are good here. You can count on them. If you need someone, they’ll be there for you, and give you a helping hand.”

This is true of her sons, she emphasizes. “It was hard work for a single woman. But now, if I need them, they’re right there for me. My proudest achievement is my three boys!”

She is also very proud of her grandson, Jared Fletcher Alexander, and looks forward to seeing him as often as possible.

Mrs. Alexander continues to enjoy playing the piano at home, reading biographies, and listening to music. In addition to hymns and other church music, she likes Ella Fitzgerald. “I always liked to hear Ella sing — such a wonderful sound!”

The church is still a major focus, and she never misses Sunday services. She serves as “Honorary” organist, “standing at the ready, in case she is needed,” reports the Reverend Carlton E. Brascomb, Pastor of First Baptist.

Music Ministry

“We can say that Sister Dorothy has been a source of stability and inspiration for the music ministry of First Baptist Church for many years. Sister Dorothy is also a mentor to many, including myself. As pastor early on, I was trying to prepare what to do for my first wedding, and she made sure I knew what to do and when to do it!

“And, of course, we all love that beautiful smile, when she walks in.”

Another sign of the esteem in which she is held by those at First Baptist is cited by Lance Liverman. “Because we understand how much of her time and energy she gave to the church for many, many years, we have chosen to continue to pay her organist’s salary for the rest of her life. It is something we very much want to do.”

Indeed, the importance of the church — along with the music — cannot be underestimated in Mrs. Alexander’s life. As she says, “The church has meant so much to me throughout my life. It’s the way I was raised. I always look forward to being in church, and I admire the people there.

“I was taught to honor my mother and father,” she continues. “It is one of the Ten Commandments, and I recommend that everyone do that, especially while you have your parents. You will never have another mother or father. It’s very important for me to go to church and believe in God. It will always help you through hard times.

“I have to say that I am so thankful to still be here! To be able to do what I love to do, to play the organ, and to be with the church. This is a blessing.”

January 25, 2012

To the Editor:

People for Princeton Ridge, Inc., wishes to thank Sustainable Princeton and its nominating committee for honoring us with one of its awards for 2011. We also wish to thank the hundreds of Princeton residents who supported us during our negotiations.

We have been part of a remarkable collaboration between private citizens, municipal officials, and business people. We thank our co-recipients — Township attorney Ed Schmierer for his hours of text-work and advice; we thank developer Bob Hillier not only for his donation of 17 acres of land for open space but for his eagerness to redesign his plans with the public interest in mind (using more clustered buildings, thus leaving fully 80 percent of land as open space). Together, we all reached a common understanding: a healthy environment is an economic as well as civic benefit to the welfare of our habitat and all its creations, including the trees, the rocks, and the eastern box turtle — who cannot speak for themselves, whose languages we must learn. The Princeton Ridge Preserve, adjoining the property we all worked so hard to achieve an environmentally smart use of land, testifies to the power of collaborative efforts, needed now more than ever.

We have all benefitted from the direction and enthusiastic oversight that Sustainable Princeton has been providing. The sheer number of awards made this year shows the important work being done by all our citizens, many of them representing civic collaborations. But there is more work to do.

Princeton is virtually built-out; few properties remain to develop. One of them is a 98-acre parcel on Herrontown Road (Block 1001), more or less across the street from the new Westerly Road Church site that is soon to be unwisely decimated. This tract is part of the environmentally sensitive Princeton Ridge: heavily wooded, with steep slopes. We hope that any developer will honor both the natural habitat land and the public interest of the community by setting aside as much open space as possible, respecting the area’s natural features (not interfering with the steep slopes), and by using clustered development to achieve these ends.

PPR hopes that the present owner and the likely developer will heed the splendid collaboration between municipal, civic, and business interests that enabled us to achieve the creation of the Princeton Ridge Preserve — and will, by proper consultation with municipal officials, choose to respect the public interest.

Let us all collaborate in preservation and recycling. Let us end the habits of waste and unnecessary destruction.

Daniel A. Harris, Jane Buttars

People for Princeton Ridge, Inc.

To the Editor:

This is a “thank you note” to our wonderful Princeton community — from the children enrolled in Princeton Young Achievers (PYA). Thank you all for your generosity and thoughtfulness in providing holiday gifts of books for all 85 of our students. Each one of our children spent the winter break with a new, and special, addition to his/her home library! Sincere thanks to all our “Book Angels” contributors and to Randi Katzman, “Book Angels” founder and organizer.

Special thanks, too, to Bobbie Fishman and her colleagues at Labyrinth Books for their kindness and help in searching for, and finding, just the right book for each child. The care and consideration they gave to each gift was remarkable! PYA is most grateful to have Labyrinth Books as our partner in our “Book Angels” program.

On behalf of the children, teachers and volunteers of PYA, we wish everyone a Happy New Year!

Connie Ban

The Great Road

To the Editor:

I have received word that my son, Christopher Reeve, has been selected to the 2012 New Jersey Hall of Fame. Other winners in the Arts & Entertainment Category are Michael Douglas and Sarah Vaughn. Princeton author Joyce Carol Oates is the sole winner in the General Category. Formal induction will take place June 3 at the New Jersey Arts Center in Newark.

This is a great honor, and I wish to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to the many friends to whom I mentioned the fact of his nomination and invited their vote on line before the December 31 deadline, as well as to the readers of Town Topics who read my earlier letter about his nomination and took the time and trouble to vote for him.

Chris’s roots in New Jersey are deep and varied. He began school in kindergarten at the Nassau Street School, transferring to the former Princeton Country Day School (PCD) in fourth grade, graduating in 1970 from Princeton Day School (PDS), where he sang with the Madrigal Group and was goalie for the varsity hockey team. He played Pee-Wee Hockey and Little League baseball as a youngster here, had his first horseback riding lessons at Hasty Acres in Kingston, learned to sail a boat on the Manasquan River in Bay Head and to fly a plane at Princeton Airport. At age eight he asked for piano lessons and began studying piano with the late John Diehlenn, a near neighbor of ours when we lived on Campbelton Circle.

His earliest acting experience seems to have been playing the Prince in a first or second grade classroom rendition of the Cinderella story, but his love of acting was nurtured in leading roles in just about every play or musical produced at PCD and at PDS, all directed by his great mentor, the late Herbert McAneny. The summer after his ninth grade year, he attended a theater workshop for teenagers held at Lawrenceville School, which brought in professionals from New York to teach technical aspects of acting and stagecraft.

Well before he left for college at Cornell, Chris was drawn to McCarter Theatre and occasionally given bit parts in its productions. He also played roles in musicals staged at McCarter by PJ&B (Princeton Junction and Back), founded and directed by the late Milton Lyon, whose aim was to give amateur thespians in Princeton the experience of working with professionals in a professional setting.

Much later it was the Kessler Rehabilitation Center in West Orange to which Chris was sent following hospitalization in Virginia for the neck injury he sustained in a horseback riding competition that rendered him a paraplegic.

I am very grateful to Princeton, as was Chris, for the important role this town and its institutions and organizations played in his development. I thank everyone who voted for him for this honor, which seems especially fitting. Chris would have been pleased.

Barbara L. Johnson

Wilton Street

To the Editor:

The IAS plan to build faculty housing on land that includes the Princeton Battlefield may seem like a local issue to Princeton, but it is not. Historians, both local and international, recognize that the Battle of Princeton was pivotal to the American Revolution. The actions of Washington at this battle added to his reputation and aided in his ability to lead the war effort. The sacrifice of the men who gave their lives was deemed heroic by their contemporaries. Those contemporaries went on to form the Republic we now enjoy.

A local issue it is not! The Institute would make it seem so, as if it were a question of neighbors disagreeing. The IAS has a local attorney and local architect representing them, but the Trustees of the Institute want that local impression because they are from Manhattan, Washington D.C., Chicago, California, Florida, London, Frankfurt, Geneva, Stockholm, Cambridge, and Budapest. This is a national issue  of respect, pride, and heritage.

I hope the Planning Board will deny approval.

J. Carney

Trustee, Princeton Battlefield Society

To the Editor:

I have been following the dispute between the Princeton Battlefield Society and the Institute for Advanced Study with great interest. I have written many books about New Jersey’s Revolutionary history, including 1776: Year of Illusions, which deals with the battle. In 2007 I received the Gov. Richard Hughes award for lifetime achievement in writing about New Jersey.

There is no longer the slightest doubt in my mind that the Institute is ignoring fundamental facts about the battle. They are planning to build housing on a part of the battlefield that is vital to understanding the event — the site of George Washington’s climactic counterattack. This is like asking people to enjoy a famous play, minus the last act.

I am disturbed by the IAS’s cavalier and arrogant attitude toward the convincing evidence that the Princeton Battlefield Society has presented. It is especially troubling to discover they have space for the housing elsewhere on their acres, but they are simply not inclined to use it.

Thomas Fleming

New York City

To the Editor:

With all the furor being created by the Princeton Battlefield Society about “preserving” for posterity a 22-acre parcel of land contiguous to the existing acreage of the Princeton Battlefield Park, you have to wonder where the Society’s members have been all these years while the Park’s infrastructure has been steadily decaying before their eyes. Have they added any additional land to the Park’s boundaries, as has the Institute (32 acres)? Have they provided any historical markers to better explain the progress of the actual battle? Have they helped maintain the existing infrastuctures in the Park itself?

As an example of constructive involvement, I can refer them back to the year 1957 when the Park’s Portico/Colonnade was about to be dismantled from the nearby Mercer Manor, a private home nearby, on Institute land. At the time, my father, Sherley W. Morgan, was dean of Princeton’s School of Architecture and president of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Because he felt the Battlefield lacked a focal point to direct visitors to the Unknown Soldiers’ graves which lie on the Park’s northwestern boundary, and because the portico was designed by Thomas Walters, the first president of the A.I.A., he set about raising sufficient funds to move the columns to their present location. In this effort he was greatly helped by congressman Frank Thompson, Governor Robert Meyner and the architect members of NJ’s Chapter of A.I.A., and by the Institute.

I think everyone today will agree that his goal has been achieved and the portico is what people remember when they recall a visit to the Battlefield. Unfortunately, both the portico and the grave area behind it, are in urgent need of cleaning, repair, and consistent maintenance.

Instead of hiring expensive “experts” to worry about how many musket balls may/may not be found under the land which the Institute owns and has every legal right to build on, or wasting everyone’s time in endless public meetings, I believe the Battlefield Society’s efforts would be more productive if they hired the appropriate experts to take care of what we already have in place for the public’s edification and enjoyment.

Arthur Morgan

Springdale Road


To the Editor:

I am a retired professor at the Institute for Advanced Study. I have enjoyed the beauty of our Battlefield Park and the memory of its history for more than 50 years. To serve as a fitting memorial of the battle, the Battlefield Park does not need to include the whole area over which fighting took place. Fighting extended over a wide area and into the center of Princeton, including the Institute buildings. Nobody suggests that the town or the Institute should be demolished in order to include the whole area of the fighting within the park. So I find it strange that the building of 11 houses for Institute faculty on Institute land should be opposed, just because this little piece of Institute land was included in the area of the fighting. The building of these houses will do no damage to the beauty and solemnity of the Battlefield Park. They will be as harmless and as respectful to our history as the existing Institute buildings.

Freeman Dyson

Professor Emeritus,

Institute for Advanced Study


To the Editor:

The Institute for Advanced Study is seeking approval to build faculty housing on its campus. I am writing to express my strong support for the project.

As a faculty member who lives on campus and a former member who spent his postdoctoral years at the IAS I can attest to the importance of the residential nature of IAS. Living on campus greatly facilitates my work, substantially increasing my interactions with IAS members and faculty. This residential nature makes the IAS unique and benefits members and faculty alike.

I believe that through the years the Institute has been a model citizen of this community. As a current neighbor of the Institute I deeply value the Institute’s commitment to preserving open spaces that include the wonderful “Institute woods,” nearly 600 acres of woodlands available to public use, and a substantial fraction of the Battlefield Park. The proposed project will add 13 acres of new land that will be permanently preserved as open space next to the Park.

During the last meeting of the Township’s planning board, Prof. Mark Peterson, a specialist in the American Revolution and early American History at the University of California at Berkeley, gave a very interesting presentation about how different localities preserve their historical heritage. Prof. Peterson helped towns in the Boston area develop plans to better preserve their historical sites and enhance the experience of visitors. I moved to Princeton from the Boston area, so I am very familiar with the sites he described, having enjoyed them on multiple occasions. As I heard him speak, I could not help but think that the current discussion surrounding the Institute’s project presents a perfect opportunity to improve the experiences of visitors to the Battlefield Park and their connection to this area’s past. I was glad to learn that the Institute has stated that it was ready to be a partner in trying to enhance the experience of visitors to the Battlefield

Park, for example by improving the interpretive materials provided in the site.

The Institute is by now also an important part of Princeton’s history. It has housed as faculty and members a large number of Nobel-prize winners, Field medalists, and the intellectual leaders of many fields of study. In my own area, astrophysics, the contributions of scientists who spent time at the IAS can be found almost everywhere and have shaped our current understanding of such diverse topics as cosmology and celestial mechanics.

I am convinced that this project will not only benefit the IAS community but also the Princeton community at large. It will help maintain one of its vibrant academic institutions; it will add permanently preserved open land and can create the opportunity to improve the way the area’s residents can interact with its history.

Matias Zaldarriaga

Battle Road


To the Editor:

The Battle of Princeton is surely a remarkable moment in the history of Princeton as well as the United States. In January of 1777 Patriots battled for American Independence and to protect the rights of future generations.

It is important to commemorate and memorialize the Battle of Princeton, and that has been done with the Battlefield Park. The Institute for Advanced Study, another great historical institution in Princeton, has been a vital partner and supporter of the Battlefield Park. In fact, the Battlefield would not even exist in it’s current state, without the generosity of the Institute. The Institute donated the Portico that stands in Battlefield Park and commemorates the common grave of American and British soldiers. In 1973, the Institute conveyed 32 acres of land to the State which more than doubled the size of Battlefield Park. This conveyance was completed with the express understanding that the Institute could and would build housing on some of the remaining land. The Institute for Advanced Study has also preserved all of the land surrounding the Battlefield, and has made it accessible to the public.

The Institute for Advanced Study owns the tract of land on which they are proposing to build faculty housing. They have met every requirement of the planning board and the historical preservationists that would allow them to build the site plan currently proposed. In fact, they have gone above and beyond what was asked and have made sure the project has minimal impact on the Battlefield Park.

To suggest that the Institute should be prohibited from using their property, simply because it was a site upon which some of the battle took place, is exactly the type of oppression the Patriots were trying to eliminate. We are a country that values the rights bestowed upon us by law. Property rights are certainly one of the oldest and most treasured rights. Those trying so desperately to restrict those rights, by waging a battle against the Institute, should consider whether they value their own property rights. Surely the Patriots did not expect future generations to use the battle as a means of restricting the rights they were fighting for.

Shari Black

Allison Road


To the Editor:

I write in strong support of the Institute’s proposal for more faculty living on its campus, maintaining its walkable community. It would provide landscape screening along its border with the Battlefield Park; and build a memorial pathway as conceived by distinguished historians James McPherson and David Hackett Fischer. Altogether, the Institute’s proposal commemorates our historic past, and sustains our living community.

Robert Geddes

Dean Emeritus, Princeton University

School of Architecture


To the Editor:

It is vitally important that any new construction at the Institute for Advanced Study not detract from the dignity of the Battlefield Park. The faculty and friends of the Institute (of whom I am one) understand the importance of honoring our history. The proposed new faculty housing at IAS meets this test. The proposed housing consists of a small cluster of single family homes and townhouses located over two hundred feet from the edge of the park. A row of evergreens will stand between the housing and the park. The housing will barely be visible from the park, much less intrusive.

The need to preserve the dignity of the park should not be used as a reason to block all development in this part of Princeton.

Lewis Maltby, President

National Workrights Institute

Wall Street, Princeton


To the Editor:

Based on decades of experience we have long believed that controversies such as the current one involving the Institute’s proposal to build faculty housing near the Battlefield can be resolved in such a way that everyone comes out ahead, especially where people of good will are involved, as is the case here.

If you stand in the middle of the present Battlefield site and look up toward the land in question, what do you see? Well, what you don’t see is the Institute’s land. What you do see is a rather unattractive angled slash of tall trees impeding the overall perspective of the Battlefield site.

Now let’s look ahead around two years and what will you see? First, you will see another row of trees but these, replacing the ones currently there, will be set back some 200 feet and will screen the new housing. What you will also see is another 13 acres of unimpeded land which will greatly open up the visual experience. This land

will have been donated in perpetuity to the Battlefield by the Institute.

We had the privilege of living virtually across the street from the Institute for 21 years and found them to be outstanding neighbors and citizens. It is our great pleasure to strongly endorse their proposal, an outcome where everyone wins, the Battlefield, the Institute and the community.

Harriet and Jay Vawter

Constitution Hill

“I just emailed our Congressman Rush Holt and senators regarding Wikipedia shutting down to protest SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act] and PIPA [Protect IP Act]. I use Wikipedia all the time. The internet should be open; it gives us power.”
—Shachar Lovett, Princeton

“It depends; some information is not good and should not be known by kids or some people but information that is useful, like recipes and history, should be free. I use Google all the time for looking up information.”
—Eduardo Espino, Princeton

“I don’t think it should be regulated by the government. I think that the internet has given the space for people to voice opinions that they otherwise may not have been able to express, especially marginalized and disabled communities. I recognize dangers of piracy or somebody decimating information. I don’t think there is any benefit in strict regulation.”
—Logan Warner, Philadelphia

“Information on the internet should be free and open.”
—Natalie Burkman, Princeton (left) and Brigit Quinn-Gordon, Ewing

“I believe it has to do with sorting out information, which is an individual right, versus the public concern that it may harm people. One possible solution is to configure hardware that can filter out information that may be harmful to children. Parents need to be more involved in what their children are viewing. I think it is a combination of both individual right and public concern.”
—Ron Packard, Princeton

“People have to understand that what they see on the internet may have a certain spin to it. Not everything they see on the internet is necessarily true. I do not think the internet should be governmentally regulated.”
—Kathleen Groshong, Milltown

January 18, 2012

To the Editor:

The fact that the Township and Borough are selecting their own consolidation team representatives separately seems odd. Given that the residents have already voted for consolidation, why isn’t the team being formed jointly? It would appear that our elected officials continue in the mindset of separatism. It’s time to move forward!

Barry Goldblatt
Andrews Lane

To the Editor:

Mr. Durkee’s accusations notwithstanding (“Latest Lawsuit Filed Against University,” Town Topics, January 11), the Eleanor J. Lewis Fund’s support of the legal challenges to the recent revaluation of Princeton real estate, the tax exempt status of several University properties, and the zoning change allowing the University to move the Dinky are not a try for publicity, but rather a challenge to the old Princeton tradition of its public officials abdicating their civic responsibility whenever Mr. Durkee’s employer, the Trustees of Princeton University, asks for a tax reduction, tax exemption, or zoning change.

The laws of the State of new Jersey can protect the public only if they are followed and enforced. When our public officials refuse to do so, the only recourse is the courts. In our legal actions, we do not seek publicity, only redress.

Jane DeLung, President
Ken Fields, Secy/Treasurer
The Eleanor J. Lewis Fund for Public Interest Research
Linden Lane

To the Editor:

The 2011 holidays were made brighter for persons with disabilities in our community thanks to over 100 generous individuals, groups, businesses, congregations, and schools who donated gifts, non-perishable food items, and food store gift cards to 247 individuals with disabilities and their families during the season of giving. Many others made monetary donations, delivered gifts, wrapped presents, and sorted gift items. This annual outreach conducted by Enable, Inc. would not be possible without the help of caring citizens who make this effort a success. On behalf of all who benefitted, we extend our heartfelt thanks to them.

Enable is especially grateful for the support of employees at Bloomberg; Hopewell Valley Community Bank in Princeton; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; NRG Energy, Inc.; the law firm of Pepper Hamilton, LLP; and Petco in Monroe Township. Students from Rider University; The Hun School of Princeton; Rutgers Empowering Disabilities; and West Windsor Plainsboro High School South’s National Honor Society played active roles along with members of congregations at Pennington United Methodist Church; Rutgers Community Christian Church; St. David’s Episcopal Church; St. David the King RCC; and the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Princeton. Special support was also offered by associates from Kohl’s in Hamilton; Boy Scout Troop 5700; Girl Scout Troop 971; Kingston Women’s Chorus; Montgomery Moms Club; and Miss Barbara’s Schoolhouse in Hamilton. We extend our thanks to the many other individuals and groups too numerous to mention.

For many recipients, the gifts are immeasurable in value. The significance of the generosity shared was expressed by the mother of a son who received a new pair of shoes for use with his foot braces; by the woman who was recently robbed and now has a coffee pot once again; and the mother of a neurologically impaired daughter who received pajamas and slippers. “It felt like whoever the donor was, they knew what I was going through. I loved every one of the gifts,” a caregiver handwrote in a special note of gratitude.

On behalf of the entire family at Enable, we thank you and wish you a blessed new year.

Sharon J.B. Copeland, MSW, LSW
Executive Director, Enable, Inc., Roszel Road

To the Editor

I’ve been watching for an obituary for Robert H. Staples, who died in late October in Lakewood; he should certainly be remembered for moving the library from Bainbridge House to Witherspoon Street and overseeing most of its life in the Longstreth building. Much of his tenure involved looking ahead to the electronic future (computers) and the need for an enlarged structure, as well as encouraging the growth of The Friends of the Library. A member of the Nassau Club, he was an old-school gentleman and a wonderful mentor. Eric Greenfeldt, former Assistant Director, and Barbara Johnson, former Friends’ president, could doubtless add details, as could former Township mayor Phyllis Marchand.

Dudley Carlson
Portola Valley, California

To the Editor:

I attended two previous Planning Board meetings at which IAS’s real estate development on the site of a critical point in the Battle of Princeton was challenged. As a Princeton Battlefield Society trustee I cannot question the good neighbor position held by residents near the Institute. Nor can I question the IAS’s tree line defense, its required design for housing, or the road’s width on the site. What I must question is: What does this defense have to do with the historical significance and proposed desecration of the property in question?

But I have other questions, such as what happened to the due diligence of the Historic Commission in researching and studying the issues raised by the Society? Did the Commission read and consider the APBB study? With all property owned by the Institute, why must this real estate development take place on this historic site? What consideration was given by the IAS board and administration to the implications of this real estate development on land critically important to American history and heritage? This was one of the reasons for the APBB study, which confirmed the Society’s position and was subsequently confirmed by noted historian, Dr. James McPherson.

I am not against the Institute. I am against its real estate development of this property. When a faculty member has to acquire land rights from the IAS and to build a required house design at his or her own expense, it can only be considered real estate development. A vote must come down to real estate development versus heritage. Not surprisingly, I would vote for heritage.

Bill Marsch
Old Georgetown Road

To the Editor:

Our back yard is full of treasures. We have dance, music, art, science, and history to explore. Behind all of this are educated people who deeply believe in what they study and perform.

The Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) is one of the most special of these treasures. There is probably no other institution in the world that is comparable. The interaction of the scholars is fostered by their living together. The freedom to engage with one another within the community of the Institute develops ideas, theories, with often groundbreaking results.

The land between the IAS and the Battlefield is in dispute. It shouldn’t be. This land is legally owned by the IAS and great care has been taken in honoring and responding to all concerns. The grounds of the Battle of Princeton reach far into our community, well beyond the land in question. The Institute is a good neighbor, has helped develop and enhance the park, and it’s important to the future of the IAS to allow it to offer housing to its faculty.

Louise and John Steffens
Brookstone Drive

To the Editor:

I am writing this letter in support of the Princeton Battlefield Society efforts to save the Princeton Battlefield. This Battlefield is an important part of American history. Without George Washington’s victory at Trenton and Princeton we may not have become a nation. This Battlefield must be preserved much like Gettysburg Battlefield in Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Society of the Sons of the American Revolution supports the Princeton Battlefield Society efforts.

Clark D. McCullough
President, New Jersey Society Sons of the American Revolution

To the editor:

Given the seminal contributions the Institute for Advanced Study has made for over 50 years to preserve the Princeton Battlefield and its environs, the current fractious opposition to its plans to build some faculty housing on a site clearly earmarked for that purpose at the time these contributions were made would be a breach of good faith. It would not augur well for future similar acts of philanthropy by other institutions in the community if that understanding were to be abrogated.

I concur fully with the Battlefield Society in its argument that the Battle of Princeton was a critical turning point in the Revolution and that its place in our history should be amply commemorated. As a staunch advocate for battlefield preservation in Virginia before moving to Princeton in 2006, I am quite sympathetic to the Society’s objectives.

However, a careful review of analyses by historians retained by both sides has convinced me that the Society has pressed its case too far based upon questionable evidence and assertions. The Institute’s plans do not jeopardize the integrity of the site, nor recognition of the battle’s crucial importance.

Historian James McPherson has proposed an accommodation that meets many of the Society’s concerns. Why not accept them and get on with making history rather than just commemorating it? After all, some of the intellectual contributions that have emanated from the Institute since 1939 are just as much a part of Princeton’s rich historical tapestry as the battle.

Ralph Widner
Elm Road

To the Editor:

I am writing to urge the Institute for Advanced Study to reconsider its ill-advised plan to build faculty housing on the Princeton Battlefield. There are few places in America where the hinge of history swung so dramatically, and precious few of them are left from the American Revolution in New Jersey. The Princeton Battlefield is New Jersey’s premier revolutionary historic site and is in relatively pristine shape. Putting up condos to serve the short term interests of the Institute would short change future generations of Americans, and hinder our study of how this critical battle was fought and won by Washington’s heroic troops. Moreover, the planned truckloads of landfill would bury our understanding of the fight along with potentially precious historic artifacts. I trust the Princeton Planning Board will see the folly of this plan and deny it accordingly.

Ben Strong
Harlingen Road, Belle Mead

“Yes, I think they should be able to build, as long as it’s not on the battlefield. They should be allowed to build more housing close to the Institute.” —Tessa Thieme, Princeton

“If the buildings fit into the landscape and are somewhat separated from the battlefield, why not? I like the Institute and that it does offer housing. Why not build if they can keep the appeal of the battlefield?” —Sierk Poetting, Princeton

“If you can see the buildings from the road and they detract from the battlefield, I don’t think that they should build.”  —Matt Trowbridge, Pennington

“Do they really have to?” —Roger Crevier, Princeton

“I think it’s a bad idea; the park is too important in American history. The most important part of the battle was the counterattack that took place precisely on the spot where the Institute wants to build housing.”

—Dan Thompson, Princeton

“I feel uncomfortable with housing next to the battlefield, as it’s a historical site and building could have some future effect on the battlefield.” —Rick Snyder, Highland Park

January 11, 2012

To the Editor:

The task force to be charged with making recommendations to implement consolidation of Princeton Borough and Township is getting off to a slow start, partly because of apparent confusion over how to proceed in this uncharted water. This is to suggest one method for steering the municipalities on an appropriate course.

First, the municipal governing bodies must recognize that they, as the local elected representatives (and not the State or any appointed collection of residents), are charged with the responsibility of consolidation. Thus, the governing bodies must take the initiative and define the responsibilities of all interested parties.

Second, the municipal governing bodies must act together if consolidation is to become a reality.

Third, the governing bodies can act together only by joint written resolution adopted by vote. The resolution should identify who will be in charge of making recommendations concerning consolidation, the powers and resources granted to such persons, and the nature and timing of the product to be delivered to the governing bodies for action next autumn. The joint resolution should be discussed in public and, as those who serve on the task force will be required to follow its mandate, they should be able to comment on its mandate before adoption.

Fourth, after adopting a joint resolution that defines the tasks to be performed, the governing bodies should select volunteers to serve on the task force. The task force itself should not be much larger than about 15 persons, so that it is manageable. But to aid the task force, the governing bodies might select a much larger group of volunteers to serve on subcommittees. The subcommittees could include local experts assigned to address specific issues, such as consolidation of police, public works, and finance.

Fifth, the selection of task force members by the governing bodies should be an open process in which the criteria for selection are publicly acknowledged and discussed. Should residence (as opposed to office) in the Borough or Township be a requirement for appointment to the task force or its subcommittees? Should employment by Princeton University or service on the Consolidation Study Commission bar appointment to the task force or its subcommittees? If the public is going to have confidence in the task force, the selection process should be thoughtful and transparent.

The sooner the governing bodies move along this course, or any other reasonable and publicly-decided course, the better will be the implementation of consolidation that the voters required by their vote last November.

Roger Martindell
Patton Avenue, Member, Princeton Borough Council

To the Editor:

Let us think about the Princeton that might have been had the partisans of expansion of the Battlefield Park prevailed almost two hundred years ago.

In 1825 the Marquis de Lafayette returned to America on the fiftieth anniversary of the Revolution. There were giant celebrations everywhere the old warrior went, and a tremendous upwelling of pride in the battles which gave us our freedom. Most of Lafayette’s comrades in arms were gone or in fragile condition, but they, with he, were honored for their achievement.

Imagine if the good people of Princeton, swept up by these emotions, had raised a subscription to purchase the considerable open lands over which the battle had ranged, and had created a grand memorial park to honor those who had helped to make it possible for them, and us, to live in liberty. What we would now have would not be Princeton as we know it, but a Gettysburg, looking backwards to a great moment a quarter of a millennium ago, and thriving on tourist dollars.

What we would not have would be much of the Seminary and the residential neighborhoods of the westerly part of town, the Graduate College, McCarter, much of Princeton University’s undergraduate campus and parts of the Central Business District.

We would have no Institute expansion problem, because we’d have no Institute. And we wouldn’t have a dinky/Arts District problem, because we’d have no campus there and no dinky. (No railroad tracks over sacred ground!)

The emotional demand for greater and greater honoring of the dead and their legacy can of course divert resources from the living and the future of a community. Princeton could be Gettysburg now had things played out differently. Is that what we would wish?

We do the patriots of 1777 an injustice to believe that that is what they fought for. They fought for a better future for their families and their people. Let us honor them by continuing to build a community which is a light to the world, with great and thriving institutions such as the University, the Seminary and the Institute.

Peter Bienstock
Stockton Street

To the Editor:

I write concerning the tempest that has arisen over the modest and thoughtful plans of the Institute for Advanced Study to provide additional housing for its faculty on its own grounds.

Princeton’s worldwide fame and distinction, and the justifiable pride of its residents in the pleasures and advantages of its cultural and intellectual life, rest in no small measure on the presence and well-being of its greatest institutions: the University and the Institute for Advanced Study. All who care for the future of our town will wish to encourage their vitality and applaud their mission to advance knowledge and learning. The Institute’s plan to enhance opportunities for its scholars to work and live together will benefit the entire community, even while carefully preserving the traditional setting of our beloved battlefield.

Respect for our hallowed landmarks is a requirement of good citizenship. But to constantly expand their perimeter by declaring each blade of nearby grass to be an historic shrine undermines serious and balanced efforts to honor our heritage, and thus weakens the cause of preservation itself. I hope that the Institute’s housing plan will be approved.

Dr. Allen H. Kassof
Mercer Road

To the Editor:

Last week marked the 235th Anniversary of the Battle of Princeton, a seminal event in world history. With the Continental Congress running out of money, commissions of many soldiers also were running out on December 31, 1776. To try to keep his army together, General Washington gave an extra $10 pay to those who would stay a few more weeks beyond the end of their commissions. On January 2, 1777 General Cornwallis and his large professional army arrived in Trenton. That night, leaving bonfires and a small group to make noise, Washington managed to move his army out of Trenton, marching all night in freezing temperatures, reaching Princeton via a circuitous route. He marched his army of about 5,500 soldiers up the unguarded Saw Mill Road as dawn was breaking, hoping to initiate a surprise attack against the Princeton Garrison of about 1,500. In the first phase of the Battle, General Mercer and his brigade were defeated and General Mercer was repeatedly bayoneted and then carried to the Thomas Clarke House, where he died over a week later.

While much work remains to map the exact location of the now lost Saw Mill Road, all scholars who have carefully studied the Battle of Princeton have nonetheless concluded that Washington’s winning counterattack took place on the property just to the east of what is now Princeton Battlefield State Park. This has been established by mapping the original accounts of soldiers who fought in the battle, and has been confirmed overwhelmingly by archaeological evidence.

Today, without walking the sloping topography of the battlefield and understanding the dynamics of the counterattack, you cannot appreciate what happened on January 3, 1777. When, if the Continental Army had not prevailed, the American Revolution almost certainly would have been lost, and George Washington would have been hunted down and hanged. Just as the Battle of Normandy cannot be understood without seeing the topography of Normandy Beach, this pivotal moment in history can’t be memorialized by a sign or a monument, but must be experienced by walking the battlefield. Saving the property where the counterattack occurred is not a matter of whether an organization might be a good neighbor. It is a question of meeting the requirements of Princeton’s Master Plan to preserve the town’s vital historic resources for the best and highest use. If the Institute for Advance Study were to be a willing seller, funds almost certainly could be obtained to purchase the property and put it into the public domain.

What is the alternative for the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), whose faculty, we are told, just cannot afford to live in the neighborhood immediately around the IAS. There are several, but one that I find compelling is the establishment of a mortgage subsidy program, similar to that of Princeton University’s, which would allow faculty to choose the neighborhood and home of their choice, and enjoy the benefits of gaining equity in their homes. I invite faculty with or without a subsidy to check out my own wonderful neighborhood, only about six minutes from the IAS campus.

Dan Thompson
Member, Princeton Battlefield Society, 
Dempsey Avenue

To the Editor:

We have both lived in or been associated with the town of Princeton since the late 1950’s and have benefitted from the town’s many significant intellectual attractions, principally, of course, Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS). Our friends and acquaintances and those of our children have all been a part of this fabric, or been positively influenced by proximity to these two world class institutions. Our lives have been enriched.

We write to weigh in on the discussion surrounding the proposed IAS housing and the use of a portion of their land that was, coincidentally, a part of the Revolutionary War Battle of Princeton. We all know that this battle ranged from the famous Christmas crossing of the Delaware river, the engagement in Trenton, and the continuing march across the fields and streams to fight with a British force on the Thomas Clark farm in Princeton. Cannon balls were found lodged in the walls of Nassau Hall, a short distance from the battlefield.

We also remember and honor the IAS for giving up the development rights to the woodlands now known as the Institute Woods and to agree to sell that enormous parcel to a conservation group assembled in the 1970s under the leadership of Frank Taplin together with other town residents. Negotiations at that time specifically set aside land for the further use and expansion of the Institute. Any attempt to renegotiate that understanding seems to us inappropriate. The IAS has already done more than its share to preserve open space, including helping to preserve an important part of the battlefield. The town Planning Board should grant whatever permissions are required as soon as possible to allow the IAS to move forward with its planned limited development project.

Michael and Cecilia Mathews
Bedens Brook Road

To the Editor:

I attended two previous Planning Board meetings at which the Institute’s real estate development on the site of a critical point in the Battle of Princeton was challenged. As a Princeton Battlefield Society trustee I cannot question the good neighbor position held by residents near the Institute. Nor can I question the tree line defense, its required design for housing, or the road’s width on the site. What I must question is: What does this defense have to do with the historical significance and proposed desecration of the property in question?

I have other questions, such as what happened to the due diligence of the Historic Commission in researching and studying the issues raised by the society? Did the commission read and consider the APBB study? With all property owned by the Institute, why must this real estate development take place on this historic site? What consideration was given by the IAS board and administration to the implications of this real estate development on land critically important to American history and heritage? This was one of the reasons for the APBB study, which confirmed the Society’s position and was subsequently confirmed by noted historian, Dr. James McPherson.

I am not against the Institute. I am against its real estate development of this property. When a faculty member has to acquire land rights from the IAS and to build a required house design at his or her own expense, it can only be considered real estate development. A vote must come down to real estate development versus heritage. Not surprisingly, I would vote for heritage.

Bill Marsch
Old Georgetown Road

TT Menna Amen Chelsea Newton Chelsea Pierre

Menna: “Family gathering together as a community for good causes.”
Chelsea Newton: “A place where families can go to come together.”
Chelsea Pierre: “Strengthening individuals, empowerment, being together trying to help each other reach the top.”
—Menna Amen (left to right), Chelsea Newton, and Chelsea Pierre, Princeton

TT Judy Hutton

“An awesome organization living the mission of eliminating racism and empowering woman.”
—Judy Hutton, Bordentown

TT Ida Belle Dixon

 “Communication for the community, bringing people together. It is a place to train our young people in a lot of different activities: camps, art, swimming, dance. It is a great help for the young and the older people of our community.”
—Ida Belle Dixon, Princeton

TT Kara Sophia Boone

“It is a great place for dance lessons and socialization.”
—Kara Boone with daughter Sophia, Lawrenceville

TT Dale Spruill-Redding

“Security and family environment. I have worked here for 26 years. I started here when my child was a few months old in the day care. She then took swimming, gymnastic, and dance classes.”
—Dale Spruill-Redding, Princeton

TT Todd Brady Andrea Darling

Todd: “We moved here seven years ago and the newcomers group was instrumental to our social network that exists today.”
Andrea: “The YWCA is a place where you get to meet people, learn new things, and experience what this community has to offer.”
—Todd Brady and Andrea Darling, Skillman

January 9, 2012

The Mercer Street Friends Food Bank received a year-end corporate gift of $75,000 from Princeton-based corporation Church & Dwight Co., as well as a $10,000 grant from the company’s Employee Giving Fund for its healthy eating programs.

“We are truly overwhelmed and so very grateful that Church & Dwight and its employees have chosen to support our work to end hunger with such largesse and generosity of heart,” said Food Bank Director Phyllis Stoolmacher, “These dollars will help to ensure that we have the food and the nutrition programs to help children, the elderly, the unemployed, the working poor, and families in crisis to weather these difficult economic times.”

The Mercer Street Friends Food Bank is the largest source of government and privately donated food for hunger relief programs in Mercer County. In 2011, Mercer Street Friends supplied three million pounds of food and groceries and nutrition-related resources to a network of 60 food panties, soup kitchens, shelters and meal programs, and helped to feed over 25,000 children and adults facing food hardships.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. manufactures and markets a wide range of personal care, household and specialty products under the Arm & Hammer brand name and other well-known trademarks.

The Church & Dwight Employee Giving Fund is a workplace giving fund which was established in 2005 to meet the desires of Church & Dwight employees to financially assist those that are less fortunate and to actively support and participate in the good works of not-for-profit organizations dedicated to that end.

“Church & Dwight has a deep commitment to supporting charitable organizations where their employees live and work and we are most fortunate to be among the charities they support. We thank them and their employees for their extraordinary confidence in our work,” said Ms. Stoolmacher.

The fourth 16-week series of classes, Princeton Dance for Parkinson, will be held January 18-February 22 from 1-2:15 p.m. at the Princeton Dance and Theatre Studio in Forrestal Village. Classes are designed to empower those afflicted with Parkinson’s disease, their partners, caregivers and friends, to enjoy movement, music and dance.

Classes for walk-ins are $10 per person. If a caregiver or spouse or partner participates it is an additional $5. Special discounts for six-class packages are given at $55, $25 for caregivers. No dance experience is necessary, and all levels can start at any time during the series.

Classes on the Dance for PD® started at the Mark Morris Dance Center in Brooklyn in 2001, and have since been replicated in more than 40 other communities around the world. Only 100 dance teachers in the U.S. have been trained by the Dance for PD® program. All three Princeton instructors, Marie Alonzo Snyder, Linda Mannheim, and Debra Keller, are continuing their training with education workshops.

They will take turns co-leading the 75-minute class. Participants will explore elements of modern dance, ballet, social dancing, and repertory from each of the choreographers in an enjoyable, non-pressured environment that features live musical accompaniment.

For more information, visit mariesnyder@dancevisionnj.org or call (609) 520-1020. The studio is at 116 Rockingham Row in Forrestal Village.