|
|
Vol. LXIII, No. 29
|
|
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
|
|
|
|
Vol. LXIII, No. 29
|
|
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
|
AARON BURT
AUDREY CHEN
CHRISTIE COOPER
LYNNE HARWOOD
LEAH McDONALD
JOHN MORRIS
SUZY MORRIS
ANN REILLY
LISA ULLMAN
JAMES WEEKS
Board Members, Princeton Girls Lacrosse
TILGHMAN PITTS
Christopher Drive
LYNN SANFORD
Cherry Valley Road
To the Editor:
We are writing in support of the proposal to increase access to playable fields in Princeton through the installation of a synthetic surface field, funded by a grant from Mercer County. We would also like to explain the benefits such a field would bring to the children in our program.
Princeton Girls Lacrosse is a large and growing organization with almost 165 girls ranging in age from Kindergarten through Grade 8. One of our most important missions is to give our girls the opportunity to incorporate an active lifestyle into their regular routine.
We feel the pinch of Princeton’s lack of playing fields. One rainy day can shut down practices for a couple of days. Due to the difficulty of getting sufficient fields, we are never in a position to host games and must travel to other towns for nearly all our events. If the weather is slightly inclement, we lose valuable practice and play time, either scrambling for space or trying to figure out how to squeeze 100 girls onto playable space meant for a fraction of that number.
For our girls, the increased usage provided by a turf field would enable more playing and practice time, and might even allow them to play host once in a while to other teams. Don’t be fooled by the minimal increases in accessibility cited by opponents; the key is that in crunch times, during busy mid-season or after a couple of rainy days, having a playable field would improve all programs’ ability to ‘squeeze in’ some practice and playing time.
As far as health and environmental issues are concerned, while there are several older and inconclusive studies that have been referenced to cast doubt, our confidence lies in the study from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which stated in May 2008 that it deems turf fields safe for children. Our confidence in the fields is further increased by the fact that numerous Princeton institutions have already done their research and deemed a turf field to be safe and beneficial for their children and young athletes: Princeton Day School, Stuart, The Hun School, Princeton University.
We believe that children can derive lifelong benefits from active participation in team sports. We need more access to playable fields in order to continue to keep the girls in our program motivated, engaged, and enthusiastic. Please help us continue our goal of encouraging our girls to make an active lifestyle part of their lives.
AARON BURT
AUDREY CHEN
CHRISTIE COOPER
LYNNE HARWOOD
LEAH McDONALD
JOHN MORRIS
SUZY MORRIS
ANN REILLY
LISA ULLMAN
JAMES WEEKS
Board Members, Princeton Girls Lacrosse
To the Editor:
Pity the good citizens of Princeton Borough and Township who now suffer the decision to rebuild the bridge over Stony Brook on Rosedale Road.
Two issues are worthy of discussion — the magnitude of the project itself and the magnitude of its economic impact on businesses in Princeton Borough.
The magnitude of the project is difficult to comprehend. We are told that the project will take 135 days. Really? We’re talking about a small bridge on a two-lane road over a fordable stream that few people noticed until it was closed. To put this into some perspective, once a beachhead was established in Normandy in 1944, it took the allies less time to liberate France! In 56 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rhine River into Germany after his legionnaires took a mere ten days to build a monstrous wooden bridge, which, at completion, spanned over 300 feet. And Caesar didn’t have internal combustion engines, jackhammers, and bulldozers.
For some reason the decision was made to rebuild the bridge in the same style as the one being replaced. Why? If there was any historical significance to the old bridge it is obscure at best. If it were historically significant, it would be repaired, not replaced. No, we are not talking about history. This is not the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, or even Monet’s bridge. Somewhere, by some committee of some bureaucracy, the decision was made to spend almost $2 million on a new bridge to replicate the esthetic purity of the old one, even though a perfectly good bridge could have been built in less time and for less money.
I suspect not many voters would have endorsed that decision. Granted, in a recession it is important to put as much money as possible into the economy. Unfortunately, not much of the money being spent on the project is finding its way to Princeton. Small business owners are the backbone of our local economy and they are losing life-sustaining revenues, as those shoppers west of the bridge can’t use Rosedale to get into the Borough. Accordingly, until the bridge is rebuilt, many shoppers who have supported the Borough for years will, at least temporarily, take their business elsewhere. While local businesses struggle to survive, the lengthy construction on Rosedale will doubtless be the final nail in the coffin for some of our valued commercial establishments. The tragedy in all of this is that had consideration been given to the community instead of the replacement of the bridge, this could have been avoided. Voters should remember this the next time they go to the polls.
TILGHMAN PITTS
Christopher Drive
To the Editor:
A sentence or two will suffice to say: Since life in Princeton began for me in 1950, I have never seen our town look lovelier in the summertime.
Bravo! to the gardeners and the masterminds who have worked hard on the plants and flowers throughout Princeton to make it endearingly beautiful.
LYNN SANFORD
Cherry Valley Road