To the Editor:

The April 18 edition of Town Topics, with its one-sided coverage of the continuing controversy over the University’s plans to truncate the Dinky, exemplifies the tendency of our local newspapers to pander to the powerful.

Your story on the Borough’s effort to preserve the Dinky right-of-way [“Ordinance Introduced by Borough Council to Save Right-of-Way”] consists largely of a restatement of the University’s argument. In a nod to balance, you record that I described as “insolent” and “brazen” Bob Durkee’s April 16 rebuke of Borough Council — but you then amplify his rebuke when you conclude with Barbara Trelstad’s lament that the discussion has “risen to a level that has gone beyond civility.”

Your story omitted any reference to Jenny Crumiller’s quietly delivered observation that good relations are impossible if they require Borough Council meekly to approve each of Nassau Hall’s requests.

Your story also omitted the substance of my own argument, namely that Nassau Hall’s plans to truncate the Dinky have little or nothing to do with the “arts” — and everything to do with eliminating inconvenient public rights of way through the University’s rapidly expanding campus. As I noted, there are presently four primary means of traveling south to Route 1 and points beyond: Harrison Street, Washington Road, the Dinky, and Alexander Road. All four are hugely important to our town. The University plainly has the financial resources to unify its campus without impairing the town’s access to points south. Nassau Hall, however, chooses to deploy its resources despotically, seeking to close or constrict first Washington Road (largely accomplished, in no small part thanks to a doting DOT) and now the Dinky and Alexander Road — with no evident concern for the impact of those impairments upon our town.

Like consolidation and the proposed high-density redevelopment of the hospital block, constricted access is a policy choice with transformative consequences, most of them adverse. Our local papers embarrass themselves when they fail both to vet proponents’ claims and to ignore opponents’ concerns. We are fortunate in the Borough to have at least four elected officials who understand the significance of — and have the courage to oppose tenaciously — proposals that threaten the character of our community.

If Town Topics is really concerned about incivility, it might usefully turn its attention to Nassau Hall’s recent proclivity for treating our town as a land bank.

Peter Marks

Moore Street

Editor’s Note: The story in question was clearly devoted to describing the ordinance the University finds offensive. It featured a quote from Roger Martindell on behalf of the ordinance (and a long letter from him expressing that point of view in the Mailbox) in addition to quoting not only Mr. Marks but, as he neglects to mention, Chip Crider, whose long letter was also published in that issue’s Mailbox. The University’s “side” was represented by the quote in response to the ordinance from vice-president and secretary Robert Durkee. Ms. Trelstad’s comment about civility clearly referred to, among others, both Mr. Durkee and Mr. Marks. Town Topics always attempts to present both sides of any issue, as reflected in the Mailbox, which would have run letters supporting the University’s side if any had been sent ahead of the April 18 issue.