February 29, 2012

Township Mayor States His Position On Institute Housing and Battlefield

To the Editor:

As mayor, I have received numerous letters for and against the proposed housing development for the Institute for Advanced Study. As many may know, the Battle of Princeton was not just a battle at what is today’s Princeton Battlefield park. It was a battle that moved through a number of sites all the way to Nassau Hall. It is clear to me that the most value in interpreting many revolutionary era battles, as they typically spanned large areas of ground and consisted of various skirmishes, is to do so through interpretive signage, archaeology, historical tours, and of course, preserved land.

To that end, I agree with the two esteemed historians, Jim McPherson and David Hackett Fischer, in their proposed compromise regarding this development. They have put forth a compromise that would allow for the housing project to move forward with the ability to preserve a large area of the overall site from development through a permanent conservation easement. The size of the land preserved would be about double the footprint of the Institute’s housing project.

In addition, the Institute will provide for archeological work on site before and during construction, access to a path through the preserved land and public interpretive signage upon completion of the project, and potential coordination with historical agencies for historical tours, thereby enabling the public to learn more about the Battle of Princeton.

Compromises inevitably leave both sides with perceived gains and losses. However, in this case I believe the right balance presents itself. We will enable many generations to more fully understand the Battle of Princeton and its importance through interpretive signage, historical tours, archaeology, and preserved land. We will also see to the housing needs met for the talented and creative faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Chad Goerner

Mayor, Princeton Township

“Compromise” Offered to Battlefield Society Essentially What IAS Was Proposing All Along

To the Editor:

Recently several people claiming to be “independent observers” have said that the Princeton Battlefield Society has been unfair in challenging the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposed faculty housing project. Please note that the Battlefield Society was founded as the Princeton Battlefield AREA PRESERVATION Society, with the express mission of preserving and protecting the battlefield, much of which lies outside the park.

A number of people are under the impression that the Institute had a major role in founding the park. Untrue. Governor Edge approached the Institute about contributing to the park in 1944, and he provided a map showing his plan. The IAS indicated to the governor that they were “interested,” but they did nothing to contribute to the park until 1973, almost 30 years later. At that time they finally sold two pieces of property to the State, many years after the park was founded. Further, it could easily be argued that the IAS undermined formation of the park by purchasing property that Governor Edge was expressly seeking for the park, much of which, to this day, is still not a part of the park. This includes the site of the winning counterattack, the very property where the IAS wants to build its housing project.

A recent letter to the press claimed that the State assured the Institute that it could build on the location it now proposes. This statement only represented the perspective of a single individual at the time. Further the State of New Jersey does not have authority over determinations of local land use.

Hopefully the IAS isn’t saying that it doesn’t have to meet the requirements of local land-use laws and environmental regulations. To qualify for Cluster Zoning, the developer must show that its project meets the standard 1-acre zoning required for this property. The Institute has not done this. In addition, there are wetlands that were identified on the property in 1990 and again in 2011 that were somehow not included on maps submitted by the IAS to DEP.

The “compromise” that was offered to the Battlefield Society was essentially what the IAS was proposing all along as a cluster development. Furthermore, Professor McPherson clearly confirmed at the Planning Board meeting that the counterattack that won the battle occurred on the site the Institute wants to develop. This is something the Institute has always denied.

The Planning Board should decide that this project with its multiple violations of land use and environmental regulations does not meet the requirements of the town’s ordinances and master plan.

Daniel Thompson

Dempsey Avenue

Member, Princeton Battlefield Society

December 21, 2011

FitzRandolph Descendant Suggests IAS Look for Alternative to Housing Plan

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Mark Scheibner (“Opponents of IAS Housing Plan Downplay Finding of Over 700 Agricultural Artifacts,” Town Topics, December 14, 2011). There are several issues in this letter which should not remain unopposed.

The Princeton Battlefield was not preserved for agricultural history; there are thousands of farms in New Jersey alone which would better suit such interests. What sets the Princeton Battlefield apart from other land in the state is the significance of George Washington’s victory over the British and the incomprehensible sacrifices which occasioned that campaign. The American Republic, as well as George Washington, was either going to live or die on that battlefield on the morning of January 3, 1777.

There is a glaring historical error in Mr. Sheibner’s letter concerning the common burial site of the battle’s dead. It is commemorated by a plaque in the park, but the grave itself is located on the southern side of the northernmost of three ponds near Drumthwacket. Its location might have been lost, as would the battlefield itself, if not for the foresight of Moses Taylor Pyne. Besides his interest in creating Princeton University from the foundering College of New Jersey, Pyne had an abiding interest in preserving the Princeton Battlefield. He saved it from developers in 1913. His granddaughter Agnes Pyne Hudson donated the land which became the Battlefield Park in 1946.

As a FitzRandolph descendant, the fact that my ancestor’s bones were excavated during the construction of Holder Hall and placed into its walls I find to be less offensive than the IAS plans. Woodrow Wilson displayed affection for the memory and the legacy of the FitzRandolphs. The IAS plans amount to desecration, as well as the destruction of an incalculably significant relic of American history — one that was carefully and almost miraculously preserved by generations of Princetonians. The IAS plan is at best self-interested and insensitive, if not a deliberate act of desecration. If the Battlefield’s use as farmland somehow diminished its sanctity, as Scheibner contends, a similar argument might be made that Arlington has lost its claim as sacred ground because its grass is mown. As for commemorating the sacrifices that bought America its liberty, the Battlefield at Princeton serves as no better example. The IAS ought to respect American history, preserve its dignity, and employ its intellectual resources to discover an alternative.

William Myers
Highland Park

December 15, 2011

Opponents of IAS Housing Plan Downplay Finding of Over 700 Agricultural Artifacts

To the Editor:

I fully support the Institute for Advanced Study in its plan to expand its faculty housing. It is essential for communities to give proper weight to former fields of battle while balancing remembrance with the requirement to maintain rational and eminently reasonable development.

The Institute needs to provide affordable housing for its unique community of scholars, and I have to believe that all Princeton residents can appreciate the need for affordable housing. The recent demands that Institute land should not be developed because it is “hallowed ground” simply stretch credulity.

Over 234 years have passed since the guns fell silent on the Princeton Battlefield. The hallowed ground is the common grave on State Park land, holding the mortal remains of 15 American and 21 British troops. Much of the battlefield has been preserved — the expansive fields, the common grave, the Clarke House, the Washington Oak, and the young Mercer Oak.

We Princetonians take seriously our charge to be faithful guardians of our heritage for future generations. The current State Park, coupled with efforts of such groups as the Princeton Battlefield Society, Spirit of Princeton, and the Princeton Regional Schools have fully integrated the battle into the life of our community, and in so doing Princeton benefits profoundly.

Opponents to the Institute’s plans highlight the fact that some 52 battle-related artifacts were found in a past survey on the land in question, while downplaying the fact that over 700 agricultural artifacts were also found. After the battle, the fields reverted to their original agricultural use — so much for the “hallowed ground” argument.

In Europe, no stranger to wars, fields are tilled where battles once raged. Cities, once scourged by house to house fighting, now ring with the laughter of children. Battlefields serve as a memento mori and as a cautionary tale, with the enlightened understanding that the human landscape is far more important than the topographic. Princeton Battlefield State Park as currently constituted ably fulfills both duties.

Communities must have the flexibility to grow, or they run the very real risk of stultification and decline. We must not let our society become a cult of the dead, especially at the expense of the living; nor should we allow our future to be held hostage by distorting the past.

Mark Scheibner
Prospect Avenue