To the Editor:

In celebration of our 45th anniversary, the Arts Council of Princeton (ACP) sends heartfelt thanks to the community for its continued support and participation. The ACP was founded in September 1967, and so we aimed to fill this past month with vibrant anniversary festivities.

Thank you to the hundreds of artists, families, and friends who joined us for our early-September Annual Members Show, which featured 165 artworks by member artists. We are delighted to share news that our Free Fall Open House on September 9 garnered both record attendance and class registrations. Our mid-month 1960s Dance Party was festive and fun — we grooved to music alongside a giant screen featuring vintage rock-n-roll footage and videos. Finally, we produced an Age of Aquarius benefit concert with renowned singer-songwriter Francis Dunnery. It was wonderful to see so many new and familiar faces here throughout this exciting month.

Thanks to everyone who helped make our events successful including: McCaffrey’s Markets, Lucy’s Ravioli Kitchen, Lindt Chocolate Shop, Halo Pub, bai Brands, the bent spoon, small world coffee, Princeton Record Exchange, Emily’s Café & Catering, and CoolVines. We send special thanks to our performers at the Fall Open House — who set the tone and created lots of excitement on our terrace and front steps — Lisa Botalico and the La Feria dancers, Uma Kapoor and her Bollywood dancers, and Zoe Brookes and the Stone Soup Circus troupe. Our gracious and informative artist-instructors rounded out a superb Open House. Finally, we thank our extraordinary volunteers, who on a daily basis work in so many ways to build community through the arts.

The ACP Staff and Board

To the Editor:

Though I am a registered Democrat who has lived in Princeton Borough for more than 30 years, I had never publicly supported a political candidate or issue, because I was a reporter. Journalists, in this country, generally try to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality. (In France, it is considered a breach of ethics for the reporter NOT to state his or her opinion at the top of the article.)

But in this Princeton mayoral race, I support the Republican candidate, Dick Woodbridge.

I respect Woodbridge’s regional vision as a community leader. As a business reporter for U.S. 1 Newspaper, I interviewed him in the late ’80s when he was among the first to suggest branding Central New Jersey as the “Princeton Rutgers Research Corridor,” now recognized as “Einstein’s Alley.”

I respect Woodbridge’s business savvy and experience. He is a patent attorney who advises companies — from struggling entrepreneurs to mega firms — and helps them succeed. I have “picked his brain” over the years on any number of legal and entrepreneurial issues. He has common sense about what will work and what won’t work.

I respect Woodbridge’s good will and diplomacy. He is one of only two people to have served in both town governments; he was council president in the Borough and mayor in the Township. From my point of view, being mayor is a difficult and thankless job. I am grateful that — in this difficult time of transition — someone of his caliber and experience has stepped forward to do it.

Woodbridge has lived through Princeton’s history. He knows “where the bones are buried” and he has the tact and diplomacy that Princeton needs in this crucial transition time. I would like to remind everyone who has not already lost faith in the American political process that this opportunity to elect Woodbridge as mayor may be Princeton’s last chance to have a two-party system. Democrats, please split your ticket and vote for Richard Woodbridge.

Barbara Figge Fox

Cedar Lane

To the Editor:

At least two of Princeton’s largest institutions, Rider University and Princeton University, are supporting proposed legislation now in the State Assembly that would empower them to build whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of local land use controls.

The legislation, known as Assembly Bill 2586 (A 2586), would exempt private institutions of higher learning in New Jersey from the Municipal Land Use Law, including oversight by planning and zoning boards.

In Princeton, passage of A 2586 could embolden Rider to place a multi-story parking deck on its property behind Linden Lane, Princeton University to build a 15-story tower in the Engineering Quad along Murray Place, the Seminary to build a multi-story student center along Mercer Street, or the Institute of Advanced Study to build any number of housing units wherever it chooses. In each such case, the development could be built totally independent of any zoning control.

Were A 2586 to pass, the consequences of uncontrolled growth — on traffic, the environment, and the quality of life in individual neighborhoods and the community as a whole — could be horrific, but there would be no legal basis to challenge that growth. Princeton would become the quintessential “company town,” even more dominated by the four institutions.

And there’s lots of opportunity for each of the institutions to grow: in Princeton Borough and Township, the four institutions control the following acreage, according to the municipal tax assessor: Princeton University – 440.73; Rider University – 25.31; the Seminar – 96.1; and the Institute for Advanced Study – 359.42, for a total of 919.56 acres of developable land.

With passage of A 2586, the homeowner with a one-quarter acre lot will have to follow the zoning rules but the private educational institutions in the community, with 919 acres and multi-million or multi-billion dollar endowments, will not.

Princetonians who care about the future of our community might usefully contact their Assembly representatives to oppose A 2586. Residents might also contact those whom they know in the administrations of the four institutions to urge those institutions to think in terms greater than their narrow institutional goals — to think of the consequences of A 2586 on the community as a whole!

Roger Martindell

Patton Avenue, Member, Princeton Borough Council

To the Editor:

Over the past several years, it’s been my pleasure to work in local government with Liz Lempert. I heartily urge you to cast your vote for her as mayor of the new consolidated Princeton.

In campaigning for our merger, Liz applied her organizing skills to solidify support from many corners. On complex planning issues we worked on, she displayed a special sensitivity to the interests of disparate neighborhoods. Liz has a talent for consensus-building that makes a difference in producing results.

Liz has been a real advocate for sustainability. With your vote for her as mayor, she now has a chance to make neighborhood sustainability work throughout the new Princeton.

Marvin Reed

Former Mayor, Princeton Borough

To the Editor:

As everyone knows, this is an election year. Across the nation, there are big contests and major issues between Democrats and Republicans.

But not in Princeton. Here we are about to elect the first mayor of our unified town, one Princeton. Fortunately, we are blessed with having two exceptionally well-qualified candidates. Either one would be able to do the job.

But here’s my point. In Princeton, there are more voters registered as Democrats than as Republicans. But the choice between the two mayoral candidates, Dick Woodbridge and Liz Lempert, should not be a matter of partisan affiliation. Rather, it should be about which candidate has the experience and the ability to do the job in the best possible way.

I urge voters to make their choice for mayor of Princeton without reference to the nominal party affiliation of the candidate.

Harvey Rothberg (MD)

Bertrand Drive

To the Editor:

Mayoral candidate Dick Woodbridge, who attended a recent Township committee meeting, was right to ask for clarification on PPS Superintendent Judy Wilson’s comments, “the Valley Road school building did not need any attention, it has been well maintained” (“Issues of Education Spark Discussions,” Town Topics, September 5).

We are puzzled. Ms. Wilson might be talking about a section of the building where PPS board meets as the rest of the building gets an “F” in maintenance, as Mr. Woodbridge well said.

Again, we must keep the message going since some other disinterested parties do not seem to be listening.

The Valley Road building on Witherspoon Street is not in good shape. As Kip Cherry pointed out in the September 12 mailbox (“Historic Valley Road School Building Neglected”) it has been left to rot as the PPS will not make a decision on what to do with the property.

This has been going on for over a year and we ask Princetonians to take charge, and PPS to leave their egos behind, make a brave, honorable choice and let the “Save the Valley Road School” committee turn the building into a community center/non-profit space; in other words, lead by action.

Candidates mention their goals of turning Princeton into a sustainable and diverse community. What do they exactly mean? We are already facing issues with AvalonBay at the site of the hospital. We have an opportunity here. What about recycling and reusing the building? What about having a community center and non-profit organizations that will certainly mean diversity?

Princetonians have approved a referendum for referred maintenance and improvements. We find ourselves in a predicament. Though we highly value education and consider teachers the most important professionals, should we trust the board to use our money the right way? Let’s be realistic and let’s avoid more dollars coming out of our pockets when PPS board decides that another referendum is needed in a year or so, to tear down a building that could have been turned into a real community asset.

Adam Bierman, Sandra Jordan

Grover Avenue

To the Editor:

It has been eight years since community representatives, municipalities, traffic engineers, environmentalists, and the public developed a plan for the Route 1/Washington Road intersection. The principal components of the plan (called alternative, D.2.A) put Route 1 in a cut under Washington Road and added frontage roads on both sides of Route 1, a west-side connector road to Harrison Street, and a Vaughn Drive connector road. Taking all of these elements together, the NJ DOT envisioned area-wide improvements.

At the time, the New Jersey Department of Transportation stated, “Alternative D.2.A was selected as the preferred alternative because it provides a reasonable level of transportation benefit, while avoiding and minimizing environmental impacts. It represents a project that will achieve significant benefits without entailing years of delay due to extensive environmental permitting requirements. In short, it is a project that can be accomplished expeditiously.”

The DOT noted that it would provide congestion relief by improving traffic flow on Route 1, improving traffic flow on east-west routes crossing Route 1, and reducing traffic on residential streets; minimize environmental impacts to natural areas and species; reduce pollution; avoid residential displacements; minimize impact to historic properties listed with the National Register; and improve bicycle and pedestrian access and safety.

Having studied 20 alternatives, with many configurations, the NJ DOT concluded that the complete plan was needed, not a selection of the elements, instituted haphazardly.

Now the NJ DOT has gone against its own plan and, without community input, without computer modeling, has chosen instead to make employees, commuters, and especially residents of the Penns Neck neighborhood guinea pigs for an experiment that has failed in all parameters except perhaps in possibly improving traffic flow on Route 1 for a relatively short distance.

It is time to stop the Route 1/Washington Road experiment and to restore safety to the Penns Neck residents until funding can be obtained to do the job completely and effectively.

Sandra Shapiro

Wycombe Way

To the Editor:

Last Monday, Princeton residents reaffirmed their steadfast commitment to educational excellence for all of our town’s children. On behalf of the Princeton Board of Education, we thank the voters for being well informed, supportive and allowing this wise investment in facilities at all six of our public schools.

Because the community has permitted the district to take care of the nuts and bolts of its facilities work, students can be assured that their learning environments, from pre-kindergarten through graduation, will be safe and strong for years to come. The board will once again turn its full, undivided attention to the learning, achievement and wellness of the students in our charge.

Thanks again for supporting excellent public schools.

Timothy Quinn,

President of the Board

Andrea Spalla,

Vice-President of the Board

To the Editor:

There are several critical leadership qualities required to serve as mayor of our community as it moves through the vital process of consolidation. We are most fortunate that mayoral candidate Liz Lempert meets this rigorous test and indeed exemplifies what is needed — a new generation of leadership.

A. Commitment to the consolidated community — Liz has demonstrated a strong commitment over the past several years to working together as one community — a requirement for consolidation leadership.

B. Inclusive planning — Liz has excellent planning skills — both short and long term — with all community stakeholders.

C. Fiscal responsibility — We have closely watched and worked with Ms. Lempert as liaison to the Finance Advisory Committee in her efforts to both keeping the tax rate flat while at the same time maintaining the high level of community services that Princeton deserves.

D. Timely decision-making — Liz has the ability to tackle the endless debates that often immobilize local government and guide the governing body to decisions in an efficient and effective manner.

E. Sensible — We find that Liz is informed by the past but not blocked by it. She tempers a strong vision with a focus on the present with practical attention to detail.

These five leadership assets provide the foundation for a new generation of governance and partnership. As Mayor, Liz Lempert will lead us successfully over the next several years to a consolidated Princeton, envisioned by the Consolidation Commission and supported by the voters. We urge you to vote for Liz Lempert.

Alison and Anton Lahnston

Elm Road

To the Editor:

To read the letters opposing the University’s proposal to move the Dinky Station 460 feet south of its current location causes one to wonder if its opponents are utterly unfamiliar with basic Anglo-Saxon property law, off their meds, have nothing else to do or some combination of the three.

Here’s the basic rule: unless you’re breaking some law, you pretty much get to do what you want with your property. Why? Because we’re Americans. Despite endless howling, no one has adduced a single fact that says the land isn’t the University’s or that it is breaking the law.

Reality check: 460 feet is about 153 paces of an ordinary biped and can be covered even at the profoundly slow rate of speed at which I, a gimpy biped with one good leg, moves in under five minutes. No doubt, many of the opponents of 153 paces would also be the first people to urge our chronically obese population to take extra steps — except to a moved Dinky station.

So, all of you, please, try worrying about something important: world peace, the inevitably bungled consolidation, or those noisy leaf blowers.

Mark Herr

Great Road