To the Editor:

Why are our elected officials portraying the new AvalonBay project at Princeton Shopping Center as affordable housing? With a mere 40 affordable units and 160 units designed to generate income for the already-profitable AvalonBay business, it is not affordable housing. It is the action of a large corporation consuming space and resources to achieve its own financial goals. Elm Court, Harriet Bryan House, Princeton Community Village, and the affordable units at Griggs Farm are examples of affordable housing.

The contributions AvalonBay will make to upgrades of Grover Park and to the Municipal Sustainable Transportation Fund are a tiny (tax deductible) portion of the overall budget of the project; but the costs to our community in the form of increased expenditures for education, public safety, and social services will be a permanent burden.

AvalonBay is not affordable housing done right. It is affordable housing done very wrong — for the benefit of a large corporation not any members of our community. We all deserve better.

Maryann Witalec Keyes
Franklin Avenue

To the Editor:

As a rising senior in high school, planning for my future and beginning to make my own choices, having the autonomy to decide what is the best path forward for myself is paramount. So to watch the end of protections for abortions, be it from the Supreme Court, or from numerous state legislatures in their efforts to ban and criminalize abortion (according to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half the states could be in this boat), is frightening because it is the stripping away of the basic freedom to choose and have bodily autonomy, autonomy that is so critical to planning our futures.

Therefore I am immensely grateful to our state legislature for passing both A-3975/S-2633 and A-3974/S-2642, bills that protect a patient’s reproductive medical records from scrutiny, and that prevent the extradition of anyone who comes to New Jersey seeking an abortion. By taking this critical step, they have protected the crucial autonomy and freedom for so many people.

However, we can’t just stop in New Jersey, we must also look more broadly. Urge your lawmakers to pass laws that broaden access to reproductive health care services and that recodify Roe into our national existence. We may see this as not our problem, but until we secure the right of reproductive health care access and autonomy for everyone in this country, it is not safe.   

Thara Ellsworth
Glenview Drive

To the Editor:

Princeton Community Housing (PCH) honors the life of the Rev. David McAlpin, community leader, and housing and social justice advocate, who passed away on August 5, 2022.

After graduating from Union Seminary in 1953, Rev. McAlpin met with Benjamin Anderson, the minister of Witherspoon Presbyterian Church, who invited Rev. McAlpin to assist him. Rev. McAlpin later became the associate pastor. In this role, he became aware of discriminatory housing practices. Rev. McAlpin helped to establish two local integrated housing developments  — Maplecrest at Dempsey Avenue and Walnut Lane in Princeton and Glen Acres in West Windsor Township off Alexander Road.

In 1970, Rev. McAlpin moved to Detroit where he served as a pastor, advocated for civil rights, and established affordable housing organizations. He returned to Princeton in the 1980s and helped found the Trenton chapter of Habitat for Humanity.

Like so many of our neighbors, we are grateful for Rev. McAlpin’s leadership, passion, generosity, and advocacy. He will continue to inspire us to work for an inclusive community that is accessible to all.

Alice K. Small
President, DC Board President
Princeton Community Housing, on behalf of the Board of Trustees

To the Editor:

The power of words was much in evidence in the August 3 issue of Town Topics. Stuart Mitchner’s meditation on his lunch with Dawn Powell [“Dawn Powell’s New York — An Invitation to Lunch,” Book Review, page 12] was, I think, one of his most moving columns (and that’s saying a lot). How brilliant Stuart is at weaving together the strands of his own and Powell’s lives — the triumphs and disappointments — and how achingly familiar is his wistful wish to revise the past. I shared his anger at the short-sighted editor who would have cut a key passage from his first book, and was more appalled to learn of the editors who discouraged him from publishing his second.

The power of words was also in evidence in that issue’s Mailbox. Maryann Witalec Keyes’ and Lauren Bender’s letters describing the inadequacies of princetonsurvey.org questionnaire (that will supposedly inform Princeton’s coming Master Plan) were thoughtful and fact-based. The short-sighted questionnaire and much of the rhetoric surrounding it are not. The “power of words” can be good and bad: there’s honesty, and there’s double-speak. Take your choice.

Ellen Gilbert
Stuart Road East

To the Editor:

I was dismayed to read about the Momo brothers’ plan to raze two historic buildings on Witherspoon Street and construct instead the modern building illustrated in Town Topics [July 27, page 1]. Although the present historic buildings may be beyond repair, do we really want to replace them with a vanilla-looking structure more in keeping with an urban setting?

What makes Princeton so delightful is its visual texture, walkable scale, and welcoming vibe. The Momos’ present restaurants have contributed to this look and feel by offering spaces that welcome and embrace. This seems their brand. Mediterra’s facade, for example, fits into our historic square yet has both a modern as well as earthy feel. Although also more than two stories, its mixed use design incorporates a mixture of materials, setbacks, awnings, balconies, and greenery that provide a human scale. more

To the Editor:

We write to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond to the Princeton Consumer Survey, the first of several opportunities for public participation in the Princeton Community Master Plan. With more than 3,500 responses, three-quarters of which have come from residents, participation has exceeded the expectations of our consultants and of the Master Planning Steering Committee, a volunteer group of Princeton residents, and the Master Plan Subcommittee of the Planning Board. The survey will be live through next week at princetonsurvey.org.

To be clear, this survey was designed to be consumer-focused and its results will inform a broader analysis about how residents, visitors, employees, students, and others spend in Princeton and how they would like to spend. As such, the survey does not touch on public fiscal policy matters, which are the purview of our elected officials, both municipal and schools. more

To the Editor:

In a desire to make my contribution to the community I have called home for 25 years, I completed the questionnaire at princetonsurvey.org and concluded that the survey has no real value. My reasons are as follows:

First, there is no control over the number of times anyone can take the survey.  I was able to take the survey multiple times without leaving my home. One can imagine how easy it would be for an individual or group to use multiple responses to manipulate the survey in order to obtain a desired result.

Second, the majority of the questions are trivial, subjective, and vague. Does the future of Princeton really depend on the fact that I purchase my groceries at McCaffrey’s?

At best, the survey is a cheap “feel good” for anyone who takes the time to complete it. At worst, it provides a flow of unreliable numbers to be used and/or manipulated in planning Princeton’s future. Our community deserves better.

Maryann Witalec Keyes
Franklin Avenue

To the Editor:

Residents who use the D&R Canal State Park pathways along Lake Carnegie in Princeton should know that last week the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) issued an alert that a harmful algal bloom (HAB) that had been identified in the lake. The alert is at the “advisory” level which recommends that people and pets do not make direct contact with the water.

The alert was prompted by a local resident who contacted The Watershed Institute to report her concerns about the lake. We advised her to upload photographs of the water that she had taken to NJDEP’s online HAB reporting tool, which triggered testing of the lake and the subsequent issuance of an alert. Our StreamWatch volunteers also detected the presence of bacteria as part of the weekly sampling they do in waterways across our region.

HABs are commonly caused by phytoplankton known as cyanobacteria that use sunlight to create food. A combination of hot weather, nutrients from fertilizers, pet waste and other sources create conditions where cyanobacteria  grow too rapidly, producing toxins that are harmful to people and pets.

HABs could become a chronic problem without better controls on the use of lawn fertilizers, septic leaks, polluted stormwater runoff, and other contaminants flowing into the waterways. While we cannot immediately change the rising global temperatures that fuel the bloom growth, we can reduce the polluted stormwater runoff that carries bloom-inducing contaminants.  more

To the Editor:

On Thursday, July 21, Princeton Community Housing (PCH) was honored to host their virtual event, A Place to Call Home — an informational discussion on affordable housing.

Panelists at this event included President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition Diane Yentel, Director of Racial Justice Policy at Fair Share Housing Center James Williams, and Social Service Coordinator at Princeton Community Housing Jordan Goodwin. These experts spoke about the national and local landscape of affordable housing and how we can make progress in providing affordable, safe, and well-maintained homes.

“To afford a one-bedroom apartment making minimum wage in the state of New Jersey, you would have to work six full-time jobs,” stated Williams. In addition to speaking about the particularly high cost of housing in New Jersey, Williams reminded us of the additional economic inequalities had by those working multiple jobs and how these families were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. more

To the Editor:

I had great hope that Princeton’s Master Plan would be created by Princetonians for Princetonians, taking our varied wants and needs into account to generate a master plan that works for everyone.

We are a diverse group that includes suburban residents, downtown residents, owners, renters, landlords (residential and commercial), merchants, non-retail businesses, parents, seniors, walkers, drivers, bikers, visitors, University students, employees, etc.

Though I know that committee members work hard and have good intentions, after seeing the first survey, I have strong concerns that their process won’t get us what we need.

The first survey’s questions are slanted towards visitors and merchants. While I welcome all visitors to Princeton and consider them important to our town, most visit sporadically, while Princetonians are here every day.  more

To the Editor:

We feel compelled to write in enthusiastic endorsement of last week’s letter in Town Topics: “Princeton Has Been Quieter with Gas Leaf Blower Ordinance in Place” [Mailbox, July 27] Our neighborhood has been noticeably quieter this summer thanks to the absence of gas leaf blowers. The difference is dramatic and welcome. We are also writing to thank the letter writer and her husband, Phyllis Teitelbaum and Tony Lunn, for initiating the campaign to restrict gas leaf blowers many years ago and their tireless advocacy for all these years.

Even a proposal as simple as addressing the universal complaint of noise- and air-polluting gas leaf blowers at the community level is instructive in how “it takes a village.” Phyllis and Tony’s cause was taken up by many. Most importantly, the community’s call for change was acted upon by our elected officials, with the expert guidance of the Princeton Environmental Commission, Sustainable Princeton, the municipal staff, and many others. Compliance has been improving thanks to the municipality’s follow-through and the proactive outreach to the professional landscaping community by Sustainable Princeton.

This is an improvement in our town that we can all appreciate and be thankful for.

Scott Sillars
Margaret Griffin
Patton Avenue

To the Editor:

You may have noticed that, since mid-May, Princeton has been a lot quieter than usual. Because of a new Princeton ordinance, the extremely noisy and very polluting gas-powered leaf blowers are not allowed during the summer, from May 16 through September 30, or during the winter, from December 16 through March 14. (They are still allowed in the fall, from October 1 through December 15, and in the spring, from March 15 to May 15.) 

The new ordinance also restricts the days and hours when gas leaf blowers can be used: not at all on Sundays or on Thanksgiving Day; not before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. Mondays through Fridays; and not before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on Saturdays.

Similarly, the ordinance restricts the days and hours when gas-powered snow blowers, portable generators, chain saws, hedge trimmers, string trimmers, and pole trimmers can be used: not at all on Sundays, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, or Christmas; not before 8 a.m. or after 8 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and not before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on Saturdays.

Note that gas lawnmowers are not subject to the summer and winter bans on gas leaf blowers. more

To the Editor: 

Last week, a letter to the Town Topics addressed a survey that has been distributed recently by the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD), and the way that it has been received in parts of the community [“PCRD Launches Princeton-Wide Survey Regarding Redevelopment Projects in Town,” Mailbox, July 20]. 

The survey’s goal, according to the letter, is to “provide robust objective data,” on proposed development projects and the way that decisions are being made on behalf of Princeton. 

I received the survey from a friend who forwarded it, with its introductory email, because she thought I would be interested in the methodology used. My business relies heavily on survey data, so it is a realm that I’m familiar with. 

Two things stood out immediately as problematic: First, the survey was described as hosted by “SurveyMonkey, one of the largest market research firms in the US.” While SurveyMonkey does, on occasion conduct and analyze its own surveys, it is almost always used as a survey tool, as in this case, where the survey was designed and will be interpreted by PCRD, with no research or analysis from the company.  more

To the Editor:

After the tragic mass killing at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, the nation’s eyes are upon the egregious dereliction of police responsibility there. The newly released Texas Legislature report reveals an unconscionable police inaction has rattled citizen confidence everywhere.

It would be good for our local leaders to reconfirm the Princeton community’s trust in the preparedness of our excellent police force for any such mass shooting possibility. To this end, I call on our police commissioner, Councilwoman Leticia Fraga, and Princeton Police Chief Christopher Morgan to schedule a public hearing here for this issue. They should report their interpretation of the Uvalde report’s facts, describe the lessons they intend to apply to assure our preparedness locally for such a potential event, and digest citizen impressions and concerns. (The challenge in this idea would be keeping the session’s focus strictly on our police response preparedness and not on gun control, a legitimate but separate issue.)

Tom Pyle
Balsam Lane

To the Editor:

Last week the Princeton Coalition for Responsible Development (PCRD) launched a Princeton-wide survey about redevelopment “to understand views on not only the projects being proposed but also how decisions are being taken on behalf of Princeton.” The goal was to provide robust objective data where there is presently none and to help inform the debate around a number of the development projects in town.

It is part of our contribution to what should be collaborative development initiatives as mandated by Princeton Council including PCRD as part of the process and provides a quantitative comparison to the invitation-only anonymous focus groups currently being conducted by a developer’s PR company with respect to one Princeton property currently slated for development.

To our surprise and disappointment, the mere existence of the survey appeared to generate an unexpected negative reaction from certain members of the pro-developer Princeton community.  more