|
|
Vol. LXII, No. 16
|
|
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
|
|
|
|
Vol. LXII, No. 16
|
|
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
|
SHAUN MARMON
Associate Professor, Department of Religion
Princeton University
(2 Letters)
To the Editor:
As a longtime Princeton resident, I am disappointed and rather embarrassed by the easy terms of the deal offered to Mr. and Mrs. James by the Mercer County Superior Court in the Congo case. From the very beginning of the Congo campaign, I have been astonished by the public support for Mr. and Mrs. James and the complete disregard shown by many New Jersey residents for the human rights of Mr. Rivera. Mr. and Mrs. James, privileged individuals with an extraordinary sense of entitlement, are, in my opinion, not animal lovers as they have been portrayed. They are, in fact, examples of the types of human beings who should not have companion animals.
The ASPCA, the Humane Society, and every rescue group, shelter, and animal adoption organization in the country have been pleading for many years for humans to spay and vaccinate their companion animals. Rabies is an agonizing, fatal disease that is a health threat both to humans and to animals. As for spay/neuter, we have far too many unwanted, hungry, and abandoned pets in the United States. Most of them are eventually euthanized. The Center for Disease Control reports a nationwide epidemic of dog bites, for the most part by intact male dogs. Congo had not been neutered and apparently none of the James’ dogs had been vaccinated against rabies.
Had Congo been the companion animal of a low income African American or Hispanic family and had he, for example, attacked one of the James children or Assemblyman Cohen, this story would have had a very different ending. If Mr. and Mrs. James had not had considerable financial resources, they would most certainly have been required, at the very least, to purchase a “potentially dangerous” dog license. The court should have mandated that Congo and the other dogs be neutered and vaccinated. In lieu of a fine, the judge might have ordered Mr. and Mrs. James to donate a substantial sum of money towards providing affordable, convenient spay/neuter and vaccination services for the companion animals of the low income residents of Princeton.
I have several companion animals, all of which were rescued. I dedicate a fair amount of my time and money to animal rescue here in Princeton and am a passionate advocate of animal rights. But I believe that the humans who keep companion animals have responsibilities towards those animals, including neutering and vaccinating them, as well as responsibilities towards other human beings and animals that their companion animals could potentially maim or kill. Companion animals should be cherished in their own right. They should not be an extension of their humans’ arrogance and sense of privilege.
SHAUN MARMON
Associate Professor, Department of Religion
Princeton University
To the Editor:
It seems that the lawsuit filed by People for Princeton Ridge, Inc., against Princeton Township challenging the legality of the Bunn Drive Ordinance passed on January 28 is right on target in its charges.
On March 31, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down a lengthy opinion in a case disputing the right of a municipality to enforce a “developer’s agreement” by which a developer is forced to pay for “off tract improvements” that are not “necessitated” by the impacts of the development itself, and whose costs are not “apportioned … pro rata” among all similar developers.
Count 3 of the People for Princeton Ridge lawsuit charges Princeton Township with a similar, if not identical, practice for the 3.13-acre parcel on Bunn Drive. The new ordinance reads, “any developer that enters into a Developer’s Agreement with the township to provide for the donation of at least three acres of land to the township for future municipal purposes ….”
This is the kind of deal-making that the state Supreme Court has now judged out of bounds. Many of us knew that the deal was suspect and inappropriately pieced together for a special developer. It is time for the Township Committee to recognize that it responded emotionally in passing this ordinance to help senior citizens remain in the community. Instead, Township Committee has passed a severely flawed ordinance, which will serve people still in their fifties as well as a developer and land owner, while destroying a special environment and putting many Princeton citizens at risk for down-site flooding.
Did you ever wonder who pays for court costs and attorney’s fees when a suit is lost by Princeton Township? The costs for both sides will automatically be charged to Princeton Township, meaning us, the taxpaying citizens. The Township Committee should not be putting its residents in fiscal danger with this controversial ordinance. Princeton citizens deserve better than the implementation of an illegal and possibly costly ordinance.
There are five additional counts on which People for Princeton Ridge, Inc., asserts the ordinance to be illegal. This ordinance should be withdrawn, right away, by Township Committee.
RON FLAUGHER
Mt. Lucas Road
To the Editor:
Susan Loew’s recent opinion on the current ridge overlay lawsuit (Town Topics Mailbox, April 9) misses the mark in several key respects. While opposition to the Township’s plan to sacrifice the environment in this critical area was widespread, and included regional residents, the People for Princeton Ridge, plaintiff in the suit, is very much a homegrown group. Having observed and opposed the Township’s determined if misguided efforts to promote development of one of the last wooded sections in Princeton over the past eight years, I can assure Ms. Loew and your readers that this is not an issue raised by out-of-town tree huggers, as she implies.
As a taxpayer in Princeton, I am less than pleased to be paying for both the suit and the Township’s defense of it, but the argument that buying the property is a better use of our funds is a specious one. The Township’s zoning overlay has imposed an artificial value on the land that puts it out of the reach of either concerned citizens or most non-profits, and only deep pocket developers like Mr. Hillier can exert an influence.
The Township has created this unfortunate situation. The purpose of the lawsuit is to correct the flawed planning approach they have pursued, and if it means a drawn out legal battle, so be it. Ms. Loew may be ready to give up on the ridge, but there are many of us remaining who will step up to defend what’s left of it.
CHARLES DiSANTO
Mt. Lucas Road