To the Editor:

All your readers who have been following the sturm und drang of the Institute for Advanced Study’s (IAS) housing proposal and the Princeton Battlefield Society’s (PBS) opposition should be aware that it did not have to be so contentious. I am unaffiliated with either the IAS or the PBS, and as an area resident I believe both institutions contribute greatly to making Princeton a wonderful place. I’m dismayed that one of these parties appears absolutely unwilling to work with the other party — a party that historically has been one of the greatest supporters and certainly the largest contributor of land to the battlefield. I see that one party has gone overboard to find a solution that works for both institutions, while the other is obstreperous and is playing political games.

I do not doubt the noble purposes of either body, nor their sincere intentions to do what is right as they see it. To bridge the gap, our own Congressman Rush Holt entered the fray behind the scenes to try to broker (in the best sense of that word) a compromise. It was at his urging that two eminent historians — Princeton’s own James McPherson and Brandeis University professor David Hackett-Fisher — attempted to bring the parties together over a series of suggestions that they made to find common ground. Alas, the Battlefield Society would have none of it and refused to be a party to any proposed compromise. And here we are: weeks and weeks of hearings at great public and private expense, with little, if any, public benefit. In fact, a negative benefit, as this infighting has certainly tarnished the reputation of both institutions. And the money and energy spent obstructing progress could have been much better deployed improving the battlefield — which is in dire need of improvements — rather than lining the pockets of lawyers and consultants.

The Institute has agreed to abide by the McPherson/Hackett-Fisher suggestions and the Battlefield Society has taken an all-or-nothing approach. Under the compromise, not only is even more open space preserved, but educational signage is improved (it is in  deplorable shape currently). During the last hearing, the Battlefield Society’s own historical witness, having heard the essence of the compromise which commits the Institute to yet more archeological excavations, indicated he could live with the compromise! And Professors McPherson and Hackett-Fisher are themselves staunch preservationists.

What more need be said? The Institute, with no obligation to negotiate and with no party with which to negotiate, and at no small cost, has done the right thing and more. I still hope the Battlefield Society will see reason.

But in any case, I would hope that the planning board approves the IAS proposal at its next meeting; it is the only right thing to do.

Sev Onyshkevych

Bayberry Road