To the Editor:

It seems that none of the letters urging us so enthusiastically to vote in favor of all three questions of the referendum makes any equally enthusiastic mention of the extra (projected) $532 annual per-household increase in everybody’s municipal taxes, should all three questions be approved.

Maybe this increase should not be borne by people who have been living in Princeton for 24 years or more? The ones who have put two generations of children — both their own and those of their fellow Princetonians — through the 12 years of public schooling? Those who, through the years, have already carried the price for the repeated (and unfailingly deemed urgent) costly improvements and repairs to school facilities and programs? Those very improvements and repairs that every time turn out to have been insufficient?

A fact that nobody seems to want to mention (perhaps because they are not aware of it) is that a new law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy last June, the Act 1669, will take effect this year. The law removes a requirement that teachers pass a basic reading, writing, and math test to be eligible to teach. The reason behind this decision is that New Jersey is not attracting enough teachers, and in order to do so, standards should be lowered. Is there reason to believe that a school, even one with an expensively revamped cafeteria, will not take advantage of this discouraging law? If anything might lower the quality of our public schools, is it really the lack of space for vocal music?

I would like to end my letter by mentioning that my child went through all 12 years of public education in Princeton, and I have nothing but praise for it. But I am also one of those many people whose taxes ballooned more than once in order to support what by now feels like a black hole of need.

Daniela Bittman
Stonewall Circle