To the Editor:

With regard to the decision of Princeton Council to settle the lawsuit with AvalonBay, allowing the demolition of the hospital site to proceed, there were questions asked that still have not been completely answered.

It remains uncertain as to who would be sued and who would pay in the event that someone becomes ill. Is it the Council’s position that the municipality, including its citizens, are held harmless in the event of future litigation involving any adverse effect that may result from demolition and construction of the project?

Most compelling is the concern for workers on the site, citizens living nearby, children, teachers, and staff who will be at Community Park School, Henry Pannell Center, and Princeton High School. As the hospital site is in the center of town, many students will be walking past it on their way to and from local schools.

Many citizens lack financial resources and may not understand how to proceed with filing a lawsuit against a national developer. Imagine if something goes wrong or if in the long term someone develops an illness resulting from possible contamination. Will AvalonBay defend itself simply by saying that they complied with the Developers Agreement authorized by the municipality?

Did anyone consult with the NJ Department of Community Affairs Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors to review the specific clauses in the licensing laws as to the ethical responsibilities that our engineering staff has regarding their rights to refuse to sign a Demolition Permit that in their opinion is potentially harmful to the health and safety of the public?

In advance of their decision to settle, did the mayor or any Council member obtain the Summary Judgment documents and then actually read them?

Did Council confer with the LSRP (Licensed Site Remediation Professionals) Board to review the testimony provided by AvalonBay’s environmental expert in their surprising request for Summary Judgment? Shouldn’t the validity of their statement that they followed ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials) standards be questioned, given the fact that they did not file an Open Public Records Act request with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection during the Phase I analysis, thus failing to ascertain the existence of incinerator use on the site?

Has Princeton Council been in contact with NJDEP Division of Remediation Management to discuss the plan for soil located under the second incinerator room to be moved to another location onsite without testing and the fact that the site of the original incinerator is being ignored altogether?

Considering that demolition of the hospital site is the largest in Princeton’s history, with unknown levels of contamination, members of Council, in their effort to do everything that they can to protect the health and safety of all citizens, should have carefully weighed each of the aforementioned concerns, strived diligently to obtain additional information, and not been cajoled into rushing.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim Floyd, Paul and Yoshie Driscoll,

Marco Gottardis, Jean Myer

Harris Road

Linda Auerbach

Lytle Street

Eric and Minnie Craig

Witherspoon Street

Stephen Griffies

Maple Street

Ken Gumpert

Leigh Avenue

Bernadine Hines

John Street

Howard and Rita Levy

Knoll Drive

Audrey and James Mack

Carnahan Place

Shirley Satterfield

Quarry Street

Hope VanCleaf

Nassau Street