April 13, 2022

To the Editor:

I agree that filling empty storefronts on Nassau Street should be a big priority for the town. But how should we fill those empty spaces?

In addition to pot shops, why not add vape shops and smoke shops as well as more liquor stores? Would Nassau Street then be a place all residents and visitors find more appealing and welcoming?  Not me. 

Cynthia Moorhead
Clover Lane

April 6, 2022

To the Editor:

Washington and New York have their cherry trees to mark the arrival of spring. For the more than 30 years I have been a Princeton resident, the beginning of spring was marked by the glorious flowering of the pear trees lining Witherspoon Street in the center of town. For the remainder of the spring, summer, and fall, the trees provided beautiful shade along the sidewalks.

Now, we have come to learn that their time is past, and we are told that their invasive behavior rivals their beauty, not that we have all been outside digging up little wild Bradford pear trees from our backyards. While the species is known to be brittle in severe weather, I know other members of our tree canopy have their own significant vulnerabilities, such as the elm (Dutch elm disease) and the ash (emerald ash borer). No, I think we can agree that the greatest offense of our Witherspoon pear trees is that we have decided (collectively) to remodel downtown Witherspoon Street, and the trees would not survive the reconstruction.

This, at least, we can all understand and perhaps accept. Before we consign the pears to the dustbin of history though, we should at the least recognize the beauty and function they have provided us in Princeton for many years. The pear trees were a beautiful part of spring in Princeton, and we thank the designers and planners who created the Witherspoon streetscape years ago. We collectively recognize it is time to move on, but there is no need to blame the trees in retrospect as an “invasive species.” The trees more than served their function, and now it is time to pay our respects and give our thanks.

Don Denny
Nassau Street

To the Editor:

I would like to continue the discussion, sparked by the March 23 letter to the editor and the response from last week’s paper, about planned development in Princeton.

When I first read the letter by the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development [“Widespread Development Will Have Broad, Lasting Impact Across Princeton,” Mailbox, March 23], I was confused by its timing.  Why was this group choosing the spring of 2022 to raise an alarm about current real estate projects and those that had already been approved and are either in progress or imminent? The fact is that all of the residential projects referred to in the March 23 letter have been part of a growth plan that two different mayors and various occupiers of Council seats have been working on for at least four years. 

Princeton’s obligation to provide affordable housing under the Mt. Laurel doctrine was fully litigated in the courts and was fully covered by our local press. The actual Settlement Agreement outlining the exact number of housing units Princeton would need to provide in order to fulfill its obligation was signed December 18, 2019. 

Rather than being “actively at work” with developers as the letter implies, what Council has been doing these last two years during the pandemic is implementing the plan that was thoroughly considered and vetted. It’s worth noting, in fact, that Council has been working to do myriad things such as: 1) keep cars off our streets, 2) place new development in locations that will have minimal impact on existing residential neighborhoods, and 3) require high performance buildings with enhanced storm water management. For example, much of the planned residential development will be near the Princeton Shopping Center so residents can walk to one of the main economic centers of our town. more

To the Editor:

The debate over cannabis dispensaries in Princeton has at times characterized many Princeton residents as “for” or “against.” I think we should be fair to all sides and “for” or “against” is not the most productive way to have a discussion with our neighbors. Some people in town are excited but some of us are concerned and I’m sure a few are both. I would like to address those concerns — two in particular: our children and our neighborhoods.

As a father of two daughters in the district I am extremely concerned about marijuana in Princeton schools, particularly Princeton High School. The truth is there is marijuana in Princeton High School right now — without any pot shops — it’s there in a student’s backpack or locker. When I was in high school I knew who had it and I knew what students would share it with you. Our kids do too.

The real issue is normalization. If there’s a store, conspicuously renting retail space, in the fanciest part of our town will our kids believe us when we tell them people who smoke pot are morally bankrupt or destined for failure? Of course the answer is “no,” but unfortunately they already don’t believe it. This generation is too smart for that. Every high schooler already personally knows a kind, Ivy-bound fellow student who sneaks off to smoke pot in the woods. When we try to say otherwise, we only hurt our own credibility. To be clear, that student shouldn’t be sneaking off to smoke weed, but she is. We must have tough conversations with our children about responsible use, appropriate ages for experimentation, and resistance to peer pressure. Tough conversations are part of parenting, and we should not try to use zoning ordinances to shirk that responsibility. more

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the recent letter to Town Topics [Mailbox, March 30] and the request to the Princeton mayor and Council to rescind the “area in need of redevelopment” (ANR) designation for the 10 non-contiguous properties owned by Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS).

This designation of an ANR for these properties essentially represented a “gerrymandering” of 10 lots of property, all owned by PTS, for the purpose of creating a residential campus, consolidating their existing accommodation across Princeton.

That project was abandoned by PTS in 2019 as a result of escalating cost and a change in priorities.

Furthermore, PTS has decided to sell five of the 10 lots classified under the ANR to a developer. Given that the original reason for granting the ANR no longer exists, and that some of the properties are to be sold or used piecemeal, it appears reasonable to request that the ANR be rescinded. more

To the Editor:

I am writing as a longtime (now retired) Princeton Board of Health member and resident acknowledging the many letters to Town Topics, etc. on the question of recreational cannabis retail stores in Princeton.

1) Numerous compelling resident expressions have given good reasons why we should not move forward with retail cannabis for a variety of public health, safety, and other factors. The Princeton Board of Health and health officer, as well as our police department’s, responsibilities and input are important in this matter. For example, I do not believe we have an accurate “on the spot” test, such as the alcohol Breathalyzer to measure (DWI) Driving While Impaired (Intoxicated). This is relevant to comparing the existence of liquor stores and initiating recreational retail cannabis. The decisions about alcohol sales were made in a different era and less complex world.

2) Promotion of retail cannabis via local government’s allowance for zoning changes can be expected to create additional health problems. These include increased smoking, motor vehicle accidents, and related impairment incidents. This is especially true with cannabis products, the dose of which cannot always be verified (in cookies, etc.).

3) A large number of New Jersey municipalities statewide, including those close to Princeton, have rejected retail cannabis. Princeton should do likewise. Otherwise, it could become a regional supplier. This would worsen already serious traffic (including air quality) and parking problems, more so with soon expected increased population density in Princeton. more

To the Editor:

Council has heard a lot of comments about cannabis and kids. Nobody wants our kids to be drunk or high, but the issue at hand is about cannabis stores in Princeton.

These stores are serious about customers being over 21. They have an entry room with security cameras where you show your ID, which they add to a database. (It’s more big brother-y than license plate readers or buying alcohol.) Only then are you allowed through a locked door into the showroom.

Who will be selling weed to kids? Not the stores. Kids will still be able to get cheaper, non-boutique weed from a friend of a friend, sometimes 0 feet away from a school.

Opponents say, “drive to another town,” but some folks can’t drive, or want to shop locally. Opponents say, “just get it delivered,” but given the wide choice of new products, knowledgeable retail salespeople are almost required.

Council’s power is to either allow these new small businesses, or not. The three new cannabis shops will help fill storefronts, help local retail activity in general, and help the adults who choose to buy there. The stores won’t sell to teens, who will still get weed elsewhere. We might increase the 500 feet buffer and share the tax with the schools, as School Board members recommended, but let’s proceed.

Bob Schwartz
Grover Avenue

To the Editor:

After months of reading about conflicting points of view and listening to the Princeton Council meeting on March 29, one thing is clear: residents are polarized about the social, medical, and financial implications of having cannabis dispensaries in Princeton.

We need to separate people’s vote to legalize cannabis from equating to people also supporting a local dispensary. We used a referendum to vote to legalize cannabis in the state, so why not use a referendum to decide whether to bring dispensaries into our town? Let’s be clear about what question we are asking, then let residents vote.

Rebecca Feder
Moore Street

March 30, 2022

To the Editor:

On March 28, my neighbors and I submitted a request to the Princeton mayor and Council to rescind the “area in need of redevelopment” (ANR) designation for the 10 non-contiguous properties owned by Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS).

This designation process for these properties began nearly four years ago as part of an effort to meet the strategic priorities of PTS. As neighbors, we entered a process hopeful that there would be a win-win-win outcome for the institution, the neighbors, and the town. We were led to believe there would be improved pathways and lighting, traffic mitigation, improved storm water management, and dedicated open space. However, no redevelopment plan was ever developed or approved, and after a number of community meetings, PTS paused the process and ultimately announced that their priorities had changed. Subsequently, we learned that PTS has a contract buyer, a private developer, for five of the 10 properties. All efforts to begin a dialogue with the private developer have been rebuffed.

Recently, PTS announced that Dr. Craig Barnes, president of PTS, would be stepping down next year. Shane Berg, the former executive vice president of PTS and our primary point of contact during our preliminary discussions with PTS, has left the organization. Planning Board Chair Wanda Gunning has stepped down, and the chair of this ANR Ad Hoc Committee, Gail Ullman, also retired. Of the elected officials who held office when the ANR designation was adopted, former Mayor Lempert, and former Council members Crumiller, Howard, Liverman, and Williamson all chose not to run for re-election. more

To the Editor:

In the March 23 issue of the paper, a letter raised an alarm about development in Princeton [“Widespread Development Will Have Broad, Lasting Impact Across Princeton”]. It cited an eclectic group of projects — University housing, a new hotel, a relocated restaurant, affordable housing, elder housing — as cause for concern. Claiming to simply “bring attention” to these projects, the letter ends by asking “What impact will all of these projects have on our streets, on our neighborhoods, on the environment, and in our schools?” (italics are mine). Implied in this question is the assumption that the increase in visitor and residential population in Princeton will be harmful to us, those who have already settled here, by bringing more traffic, less parking, more students in schools, and myriad other problems.

There was no mention of the value of these projects to the community. Yet the continued health and vitality of Princeton depends on not just tolerating but welcoming growth that helps encourage a diverse population to live, learn, work, and visit here.

More notably absent was any consideration for the implied them, the people who would benefit from these projects: the students and faculty, the visitors to the town, the merchants, and, most critically, those who wish to find a home here but can’t. Are we really going to choose ease of parking, speed of travel, and comfort with the status quo over the things that allow more people to live and work here in a satisfying and healthy way?

I believe that such priorities need to be examined and realigned.

Meg Davis
Shadybrook Lane

To the Editor:

As we approach National Library Week (April 3-9), we’re pleased to acknowledge the Princeton Public Library. Recently, Library Journal magazine awarded our library its highest rating, Five Stars.

This recognition is significant for three reasons:

  1. Our library is the only one in the state to receive this rating;
  2. This is the sixth year in a row our library has achieved this rating;
  3. PPL was ranked No. 1 nationally in its budget category.

Many factors contribute to such excellence. Thank you, municipality. Your ongoing financial support recognizes that many consider the library our community’s living room and their favorite place in Princeton.

Thank you, patrons. Your respect for, embrace of, and participation in all that our library offers — print and online resources; a range of programs; a peaceful, vital oasis in a bustling downtown; a locale that enhances opportunities to build community — confirm why our library is the second most-popular destination (after Princeton University) of folks who visit Princeton.

Thank you, Friends and Foundation and donors. Your support allows us to provide materials that engage our diverse population and sponsor events that enhance, celebrate, and challenge our patrons’ lives and intellect. more

To the Editor:

On behalf of People & Stories/Gente y Cuentos, we would like to thank the many people who contributed to a successful March 24 fundraising event, Notable Words: An Evening with Susan Choi.

We greatly appreciate our ticket buyers, sponsors, and corporate sponsors Stark & Stark, NRG, Lear & Pannepacker, Taft Communications, and Beaumont Investments, who made possible the celebratory evening. Your donations sustain our programs!

Princeton Unitarian Universalist Church, the event venue, provided a gracious space and staff, and delicious food was provided by Emily’s Catering. Thank you to the local businesses that contributed to the silent auction.

We are grateful for our guest speaker, author Susan Choi, who made the trip from Brooklyn on a rainy evening. Choi’s insightful words, reading and the discussion that followed, encapsulated the power of stories and the very human experience of sharing them. This has been the heart of People & Stories/Gente y Cuentos programs for the past 50 years.

Charlotte Friedman
Andrea Honore
Board Co-Chairs, People & Stories/Gente y Cuentos
Eggerts Crossing Road, Lawrenceville

To the Editor:

I appreciate the recent public-spirited expression by Cannabis Task Force (CTF) member Kimberly Levitt, MD, MPH [“Banning Cannabis Dispensaries Hurts Adults Who Have Legally Made the Choice to Use It,” Mailbox, March 23].

Dr. Leavitt is a local family physician and acupuncturist who laudibly wants to advance the interest of public health as she sees it. But her reasoning seems illogical and suggests for a public health expert like herself an inexplicable predisposition favoring retail shops selling a indisputably psychoactive substance demonstrably harmful to the health of many.

First, the presence or absence of retail marijuana shops in Princeton in no way will influence cannabis research and a local doctor’s capacity to give the best possible advice from the medical literature on cannabis. Second, while the lack of tested products makes harder her ability to advise, this also has nothing to do with marijuana shops in Princeton. Ironically, such lack is a matter that she as a public health expert should insist the CTF itself address before any shops are permitted anywhere. more

To the Editor:

I am in favor of having three marijuana dispensaries in Princeton. Then I could pick the marijuana shop I wanted to patronize based on my view of the quality of the various products offered. Parking availability, knowledgeable staff, and ambiance would probably count too.

As an 80-year-old and grandparent of three, I am of course concerned about anything that could harm young people. But my concerns for youngsters run more to the dangers from bicycle accidents, unattended swimming pools, drunk drivers — and global warming and nuclear war.

Our country survived during 12 years of governance by individuals who had some contact with marijuana (Clinton, Bush, Obama). Surely the town of Princeton can survive the presence of three legal marijuana shops.

Dawn Day
Meadowbrook Drive

March 23, 2022

To the Editor:

The growing number of states legalizing marijuana doesn’t change the fact that multiple adverse health effects are linked to marijuana. I am an anesthesiologist, practicing in New Jersey for about four years. I’ve seen patients using marijuana coming to the operating room due to various causes. I’d like to present some facts from academic articles and clinical databases.

First, marijuana is known as the gateway drug toward harder drugs. Contrary to popular belief, marijuana can be addictive. Early exposure to cannabinoids in adolescent rodents decreases the reactivity of brain dopamine reward centers later in adulthood. To the extent that these findings generalize to humans, this could help explain the increased vulnerability for addiction to other substances of misuse later in life that most epidemiological studies have reported for people who begin marijuana use early in life. Recent data suggest that 30 percent of those who use marijuana may have some degree of marijuana use disorder. People who are addicted to marijuana are three times more likely to be addicted to heroin. more

To the Editor:

Did you know there are plans underway to add approximately 1,000 new residential units in Princeton? While a few of these units will replace existing residential units, the vast majority will not. In a town with just 31,000 residents, this planned development will have a broad and lasting impact that will be felt across all of Princeton. If each new residential unit houses, on average, three people, Princeton’s population will increase by about 10 percent. In addition, Princeton University is building two new residential colleges to house 1,000 undergraduate students and a new Lake Campus development to house 600 post doc and grad students, along with a 600-car garage. The current non-University residential construction plans require somewhere between one and two new parking spaces per unit.

Recently, the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD) conducted numerous conversations with residents throughout Princeton, and we realized that many aren’t aware of the developments being planned for our town. We are not opposed to new development per se and we certainly welcome new neighbors from near and far to our community. However, with projects being planned and approved piecemeal, it is difficult to get the full picture of what is happening. With the new construction season about to commence and with a number of projects about to break ground, we think this is a good time to bring attention to the real estate development projects currently underway or in active planning. more

To the Editor:

I recommend that everyone who is interested in the subject of cannabis dispensaries in Princeton read the Cannabis Task Force (CTF) report (tinyurl.com/5643pz7e), which I found to be well-researched, thorough, and balanced. I was surprised when a fervid opposition to the recommendations in the report emerged, given that Princeton voted overwhelmingly in support of legalization. I don’t see how cannabis dispensaries are qualitatively different from liquor stores, which are an accepted part of our community.

Like alcohol, cannabis is now a legal drug. Like alcohol, cannabis will be for sale to adults only. As with alcohol, adults will be personally responsible for consuming cannabis appropriately and safely. There is a potential for abuse, as there is with all drugs, but blocking cannabis dispensaries in Princeton will not obviate that potential any more than getting rid of liquor stores would.

Opponents argue that the presence of cannabis dispensaries in Princeton will increase children’s awareness of cannabis and encourage them to use it. But it is no more feasible to hide the existence and legal consumption of cannabis from children than it is to hide the existence and legal consumption of alcohol. It is the responsibility of parents to educate their children about the dangers and illegality of underage use of any drug, including alcohol. Talking with and educating children about cannabis would be of vastly more benefit to them than blocking the establishment of cannabis dispensaries in our town. more

To the Editor:

Many thanks to the Princeton Public Library for including the nascent Princeton Einstein Museum of Science in two Pi Day events on March 12 and 14. We saw lots of interest as we handed out space tattoos and activity sheets and let everyone try our black hole tabletop exhibit. More than a famous scientist, Albert Einstein was a man of exceptional humanitarianism, and it is fitting that we celebrate him on his birthday. 

Elizabeth Romanaux
Founder and Project Director, Princeton Einstein Museum of Science
Sycamore Place

To the Editor:
The Bryn Mawr-Wellesley Book Sale celebrated its 90th annual sale last week and earned the highest return in its history. Proceeds will be used for college scholarships in our region. Hundreds of book dealers from around the East Coast flocked to the opening and scooped up truckloads of books. The high pace of purchasing continued over the next three days as customers — many of whom we have come to know as friends — joined us.

We are grateful to our 150+ volunteers and offer our special gratitude to the staff of Stuart Country Day School where we held the event. We couldn’t have done it without you!

Kathryn Morris
President, Bryn Mawr-Wellesley Book Sale
Witherspoon Street

To the Editor:

If you’re not sure what to think about recreational cannabis dispensaries, consider information and lessons from other states. To locate many more credible resources that paint a sobering reality of cannabis, prepare to search beyond the paid Google content and filter through lots of “studies” funded by the wealthy and powerful cannabis industry. You’ll find that cannabis poses many risks to communities, this is why the majority of towns in states where cannabis was legalized opt out of retail dispensaries, including most of our neighbors, e.g. Montgomery, West Windsor, Plainsboro, Robbinsville, Cranbury, etc.

The main problem with cannabis is that THC levels — the key ingredient that makes a person feel high and drives addiction — aren’t regulated and there are no health guidelines for how much THC is too much, or whether the THC (or CBD) will negatively interact with other medications. According to wayofleaf.com, THC levels in marijuana have been increasing — from less than 4 percent in the early 1990s, to 20 percent and even over 30 percent today. In edibles — which aren’t yet available in New Jersey, but are under discussion and sold in other states — the THC potency can be as high as 90 percent. Who knowns what will happen to your kid when a friend — perhaps as a practical joke — hands him a bunch of THC-laced gummies.  more

To the Editor:

It is with dismay that I learned of the possibility recreational cannabis (RC) shops would open in Princeton. While we’re all well aware that RC has been legalized at the state level, which will rightfully address decriminalization, it need not imply we leverage the law to create our local pot paradise. We’re debating an intoxicant here, an established entry drug towards hard drugs.

While Princeton is a student town, the Council has always guarded that Princeton never became a party town, with a restricted number of alcohol licenses in place and an absence of nightclubs and the like. Licensing cannabis shops in town would be contrary to this overarching philosophy. Many of the surrounding townships have opted out. Do we wish Princeton to be the pivot of RC tourism for Central Jersey, the pervasive smell of cannabis enveloping Palmer Square and Witherspoon Street?  more

To the Editor:

I write to support one or more cannabis dispensaries in Princeton, for reasons beyond those that have already graced these pages.

For many decades continuing into my early seventies, I continued to participate in a very physically challenging sport and do my own home yardwork. Unfortunately, while these were good for me in many ways, I have had back issues for the last eight years. I tried everything for relief, including major spine surgery seven years ago. That provided relief from the worst pain, but in the last couple of years other symptoms have crept back. In the last six months I have consulted with numerous doctors and pain management specialists once again. They recommend that I try cannabis.

In my earlier years I must admit that I had a bit of marijuana a few times. And no, “I did not inhale.” Well — not much anyway. And I enjoyed it!

So for both medical and recreational purposes, I would like to try high quality marijuana. I don’t want to be driving all over the state to purchase it. Nor do I want to obtain product of unknown quality by mail order. I would like a local dispensary whose owners I can get to know and trust, and who have demonstrated knowledge of this product which for too long has been stigmatized and sold in the shadows.

I hear parents say, “marijuana is bad for my kids.” By state law it will not be sold to anyone under 21. Why is a cannabis dispensary any different in this regard from the 15 or so liquor stores in Princeton? Parents, please teach your children your values. more

To the Editor:

This personal opinion, which is not intended to reflect the view of my employer, is in response to recent concern about the safety of having a cannabis dispensary in town. As a family physician, it is my job to provide medical advice to my patients using the best clinical evidence available whenever possible. It has been more difficult to provide such advice for cannabis than either tobacco or alcohol. There are fewer clinical studies available to guide my advice on drug-drug interactions, disease-drug interactions, and the long-term impacts on physical and mental health from cannabis use. For nearly every other substance my adult patients are using recreationally or medicinally I have information on pharmokinetics, adverse effects, beneficial effects, which organs break down and secrete the drug and how that may impact the same process for other substances (prescription, over the counter, illicit or legal) being used by a patient.

Fortunately federal laws preventing quality clinical research on cannabis have been partially lifted in the last few years. This should be good news for those of us in clinical medicine struggling to stay informed enough to know when to advise against use or simply caution moderation in the use of cannabis products. My patients (who when asked about substance use answer me much more candidly now that the fear of criminal penalties have been lifted by legalization) have shown me that a sizeable portion of my practice has been and currently are using cannabis regardless of the concerns noted by medical organizations. The rising trend across the state of blocking cannabis dispensaries does nothing to stem the steady tide of cannabis use in our towns, but it does make it difficult for doctors to provide evidence-based guidance.

Not having a regulated market makes the question of the provenance and safety of the cannabis products people are using unknown, which could be problematic to people’s health and well-being. For example, someone might not know if the product they are using is real or is contaminated with toxins, nor might they know the chemical composition of that product, which greatly effects the complex plant chemistry and interaction with medications and preexisting conditions. Without secured, contaminant tested, component (CBD/G, THC, Terpenes) tested products, I am not able to give the most effective medical advice possible to my patients who have chosen to use cannabis.  more

March 16, 2022

To the Editor:

I’ve lived in Princeton since 1971, and for the first time in 50+ years I am compelled to send a public letter in response to a concerning dynamic I’ve observed over the past months.

In 2020, along with nearly 80 percent of Princeton residents, I voted for the legalization of cannabis in our state. The reasons for strong support of the initiative have already been extensively documented in these pages and elsewhere, so there’s little need to re-visit the voters’ decision and re-hash the arguments here. Cannabis will soon be available for legal, recreational use in Princeton — whether over the counter at local dispensaries, or via delivery. Wherever one stands on this issue, it’s coming.

Meanwhile, it’s been impossible to ignore the recent response. Here, in Princeton of all places, I have been dismayed to see mis- and dis-information machines ratcheted up. Nefarious intentions have been insinuated and impugned. Data from inconclusive research have been cherry-picked to support points of view. Sadly, all signs of the times, all symptoms of a greater malaise in our body politic.

After receiving a mailer from a group opposed to dispensaries in town (including claims that simply didn’t ring true) I wondered: was I naive to believe that a civic-minded group of residents and subject-matter experts (the Cannabis Task Force) wouldn’t take their task seriously? So I read the report for which the CTF has spent nearly 11 months soliciting input and examining issues from every conceivable perspective.

I was extremely impressed: the report is well-researched, well-referenced, and well-reasoned. And easy to read. It’s thorough, while also identifying areas requiring further study. And it’s careful not to draw inferences from inconclusive data sets. I commend the group’s comprehensive work and thank them for their service to our town. more

To the Editor:

Council task forces were created with an admirable goal to help the municipal government solve problems by tapping into local volunteers instead of paying for outside consultants. The recent controversies surrounding permit parking and cannabis dispensaries, however, highlight the urgent need to establish robust governance policy, particularly in the following four areas.

First, there must be transparency in task force activities. Even though task forces are technically outside the purview of the Sunshine Law, their mandate to draft policy recommendations underlines their critical role in the policy making process and calls for adequate disclosure. Considering that most task force meetings were held in the middle of the day and practically impossible for residents with a full-time job to attend, the fact that the Permit Parking Task Force (PPTF) had no meeting minutes for the entire year of 2021 and the Cannabis Task Force (CTF) had no meeting minutes or voting records for its entire existence is beyond disappointing.

Second, task force membership needs fair representation from the broad community. While fair representation can sometimes be difficult to define, the opposite of fair representation is not when parts of the community that a reasonable person would expect to have an opinion of the underlying issue don’t have adequate representation on these task forces or their representation is nearly invisible in all the public meetings as were the case for the Board of Education, the Board of Health, Corner House and the Police Department on the CTF. Not surprisingly, this lack of fair representation shows up loudly in the rather one-sided CTF report. more