June 13, 2012

Trust Puts Battlefield On “Endangered” List; Institute Defends Plans for Development

MARKING THE SPOT: Lawyer Bruce Afran, who represents the Princeton Battlefield Society, spoke at last week’s press conference announcing that the National Trust for Historic Preservation had named the Battlefield to its list of “America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places.”

The Institute for Advanced Study’s case for building faculty housing on an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the Princeton Battlefield took a hit last week with the announcement that The National Trust for Historic Preservation has named the Princeton Battlefield to its 2012 list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. This annual list “spotlights important examples of the nation’s architectural, cultural, and natural heritage that are at risk of destruction or irreparable damage.”

“As proposed, the project would radically alter the integrity of the historic landscape, which has never been built upon, burying or destroying potential archeological resources and dramatically changing the topography of the terrain — an important element of the battle and essential to interpreting the battle today,” said a statement released by the National Trust. “Local preservationists, led by the Princeton Battlefield Society, are working to prevent construction of housing on this significant portion of the Princeton Battlefield and permanently protect the site from future development.”

“We cannot comment on the basis for the designation of the Battlefield site by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, although we are familiar with the various arguments advanced by the Princeton Battlefield Society,” said a statement released by the Institute for Advanced Study in response to the announcement. “Those arguments were fully aired before the Regional Planning Board, which approved the Institute’s Faculty Housing Project unanimously.” An article about the Planning Board’s decision, detailing the plan and amendments to it “that resulted from the Institute’s discussions with prominent historians,” can be viewed at www.ias.edu/news/press-releases/2012/03/02/faculty-housing.

“The Battle of Princeton transformed prospects for the American Revolution and proved to be a major turning point in the war,” said Stephanie Meeks, president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “The story of our country’s fight for independence is incomplete without a fully preserved Princeton Battlefield.”

At a press conference announcing the names on this year’s “endangered” list, speakers included representatives from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Princeton Battlefield Society, and local officials. Describing the campaigns to save them, Philadelphia National Trust Field Director Walter W. Gallas spoke of investing in these places “for as long as it takes.” Mr. Gallas and others speakers also took note of the location of the press conference, immediately in front of the Princeton Battle Monument at Princeton Borough. “It’s a sign of the community’s appreciation and respect for its history,” observed Mr. Gallas.

Borough Mayor Yina Moore said that preserving the Battlefield “should be a high priority in our community.” While local “institutions of higher learning” are highly appreciated, she added, “we should not overlook the significance of the Battlefield.”

Kip Cherry, first vice president of the Princeton Battlefield Society, also spoke, setting the historic scene at what is known as “Maxwell’s Field. It was, she said, one of Washington’s first military successes and is believed by some to have altered the course of the war. “The stakes were enormous, morale was low, and the army was losing commissions.”

In addition to “radically altering the landscape,” objections to the Institute’s plan include the belief that filling in the site and building on it would bury yet-to-be found artifacts. The development, said Society President Jerry Hurwitz, is “dead center of the British line.” He described the plan to build on it as “a desecration,” and maintained that the current archeological protocol “is not enough.”

“This is hallowed ground. The search needs to be done in a slow, methodical way,” he observed. Another argument against the Institute’s plan, he added, is the fact that the proposed site is on wetlands with poor drainage. Lawyer Bruce Afran suggested that the Institute had concealed the existence of the wetlands in its application for permission to build on the site. Mr. Afran also described the site as an early location of a Native American settlement.

“The project provides for a 200-foot buffer zone alongside the Princeton Battlefield State Park, with an additional 10 acres adjacent to the Park scheduled to be conserved permanently as open space,” declared the Institute’s statement. “The plan has been carefully developed to respect and enhance the historic setting while ensuring that the Institute will retain its essential character as a residential community of scholars of the highest quality. The Institute remains committed to our plan to build housing for our faculty.”

The announcement of the Battlefield’s place on the endangered list took the Institute by surprise, said a spokesperson, who cited ongoing Institute efforts to protect the Battlefield and to comply with regulations.

“America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places” has “identified more than 230 threatened one-of-a-kind historic treasures” since 1988 that are “threatened by neglect, insufficient funds, inappropriate development, or insensitive public policy,” and report that “only a handful of listed sites have been lost.”

Other sites on this year’s endangered list include Sweet Auburn in Atlanta, the birthplace of Martin Luther King, Jr.; Joe Frazier’s Gym in Philadelphia; the Malcolm X-Ella Little-Collins House in Boston; Terminal Island in the Port of Los Angeles; Texas courthouses; Theodore Roosevelt’s Elkhorn Ranch in Billings County, North Dakota; and the Village of Zoar in Ohio.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately funded nonprofit organization. For more information visit www.PreservationNation.org.


March 7, 2012

IAS Housing Plan Prevails, Opponents to Appeal

Following four lengthy meetings spanning the past three months, Princeton’s Regional Planning Board last Thursday approved the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposal to build faculty housing on land it owns bordering the historic Princeton Battlefield. The Board voted unanimously for the plan, which was amended with modifications suggested at a previous meeting by historians James McPherson and David Hackett Fischer.

But Bruce Afran, attorney for the Princeton Battlefield Society, which vigorously opposes the plan, said the organization will appeal the decision. “The Planning Board was really just the opening skirmish,” he said Tuesday morning. “The main fight to preserve it is only just starting.”

Mr. Afran said he is preparing to challenge the Institute in light of a 1992 settlement agreement in which they gave up the right to build on the land bordering the Battlefield. In addition, he will ask the Department of Environmental Protection to reopen a letter of interpretation about the existence of wetlands on the site. “It is smack on top of wetlands,” he said, claiming that two separate surveys, in 1990 and 2011, indicated that this was the case. “This is illegal under state and federal laws and we will go to court on that.”

Christine Ferrara, senior public affairs officer at the IAS, said Mr. Afran misinterprets the agreement between the Institute and the Township. “Especially according to one member of the Planning Board, who was involved at the time of the settlement, his interpretation is incorrect,” she said. “Now, the colleagues on the Board have concurred. It is very clear-cut, in our view.”

Numerous residents of the neighborhood surrounding the IAS have spoken in favor of the plan in recent months, while Battlefield Society members have said it will desecrate the site of General George Washington’s counterattack and first victory against the British in the January 3, 1777 Battle of Princeton. The 15 faculty homes, eight of which are townhouses, will be located on seven acres, with an additional 10 acres adjacent to the Park to be preserved as public open space.

“Every vote in favor of the Institute’s plan is a vote against American history,” said William Tatum III, a scholar at the David Library of Washington Crossing, Pa. Battlefield Society member Brian Kovacs echoed Mr. Tatum’s views, calling approval of the proposal “misguided reasoning” and “an act against our heritage.”

Among those sympathetic to the proposal was Didier Fassin, the Institute’s James D. Wolfensohn Professor of Social Sciences. “This is an intellectual community, and to build an intellectual community one needs proximity,” he said, referring to the Institute’s preference that its scholars should be housed on site. Homes in the surrounding neighborhood have become too costly for faculty members, the Institute has said.

Mr. Afran’s claim about the existence of wetlands is based on a survey commissioned in 1990 by the IAS when it wanted to build housing on a different section of its property. That survey showed wetlands in the area where the housing approved last week is to be built, he said. The same person who did that survey was hired by the Battlefield Society last year. She found the same evidence of wetlands, he said.

“The Institute knew about these wetlands all along, but they concealed it,” Mr. Afran said. “The wetlands feed right into the Stony Brook and Lake Carnegie and our drinking water supply.”

The approved housing is to be built behind a buffer zone. According to the plan’s modifications, that buffer will be moved away from the edge of Battlefield Park and put directly behind the homes, shielding them from view and maintaining open space. The amendments also call for a path to be installed through the Institute property, with interpretive signage at the northern end about the Battle of Princeton; providing public access to the buffer zone; and reducing the size of one of the houses.

Before voting, members of the Planning Board expressed sympathy with both sides of the issue. But ultimately, the Institute plan won out.

“So many times, objectors who come before us have financial gain [as their purpose],” said Janet Stern. “Here, we have passion and zeal, and I’m wrestling with a lot of it …. Given that the Institute does own the land and that it does have the legal right to build …. I would support the application.”

Peter Madison said the application had to be viewed not just from an emotional point of view, but from a legal standpoint. The Battlefield Society would likely appeal a vote in favor of the proposal, he said. “But I believe if this application would go to court, I think the application has a much stronger case. So I will vote in favor.”

Mildred Trotman said, “As sympathetic as I am to supporters of the Battlefield, given all the information we have been given and the history of this project that goes back years and years, I feel confident supporting it.”

In a written statement, Institute Director Peter Goddard said the IAS was “immensely pleased” to have received approval. “This plan not only enables us to maintain the essential residential character of our community of scholars, but it will also enhance the Princeton Battlefield Park, which the Institute helped create and expand. We plan to work with others to promote the improvement of the interpretative materials in the park so that visitors might gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the Battle of Princeton. We look forward to partnering with local, state and regional bodies to that end.”

Mr. Afran said yesterday, “The hurdles against the Institute are immense at this point.”


February 29, 2012

“Compromise” Offered to Battlefield Society Essentially What IAS Was Proposing All Along

To the Editor:

Recently several people claiming to be “independent observers” have said that the Princeton Battlefield Society has been unfair in challenging the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposed faculty housing project. Please note that the Battlefield Society was founded as the Princeton Battlefield AREA PRESERVATION Society, with the express mission of preserving and protecting the battlefield, much of which lies outside the park.

A number of people are under the impression that the Institute had a major role in founding the park. Untrue. Governor Edge approached the Institute about contributing to the park in 1944, and he provided a map showing his plan. The IAS indicated to the governor that they were “interested,” but they did nothing to contribute to the park until 1973, almost 30 years later. At that time they finally sold two pieces of property to the State, many years after the park was founded. Further, it could easily be argued that the IAS undermined formation of the park by purchasing property that Governor Edge was expressly seeking for the park, much of which, to this day, is still not a part of the park. This includes the site of the winning counterattack, the very property where the IAS wants to build its housing project.

A recent letter to the press claimed that the State assured the Institute that it could build on the location it now proposes. This statement only represented the perspective of a single individual at the time. Further the State of New Jersey does not have authority over determinations of local land use.

Hopefully the IAS isn’t saying that it doesn’t have to meet the requirements of local land-use laws and environmental regulations. To qualify for Cluster Zoning, the developer must show that its project meets the standard 1-acre zoning required for this property. The Institute has not done this. In addition, there are wetlands that were identified on the property in 1990 and again in 2011 that were somehow not included on maps submitted by the IAS to DEP.

The “compromise” that was offered to the Battlefield Society was essentially what the IAS was proposing all along as a cluster development. Furthermore, Professor McPherson clearly confirmed at the Planning Board meeting that the counterattack that won the battle occurred on the site the Institute wants to develop. This is something the Institute has always denied.

The Planning Board should decide that this project with its multiple violations of land use and environmental regulations does not meet the requirements of the town’s ordinances and master plan.

Daniel Thompson

Dempsey Avenue

Member, Princeton Battlefield Society

February 15, 2012

A Veblen-Einstein Solution Proposed For Institute Faculty Housing Problem

To the Editor:

I have always been a supporter of the Institute for Advanced Study. When I served on Princeton Township Committee I voted to appropriate $14 million in taxpayer money to preserve the Institute Woods by purchasing a conservation easement from the Institute. I still believe this is the largest amount ever spent to preserve land in Princeton history.

My family has always been a supporter of the Institute. When they first moved to Princeton in the 1960’s, they purchased a house from the Institute after an Institute Trustee let it be known that they wanted the cash flow rather than real estate.

This house was originally owned by Oswald Veblen, the first Institute faculty appointment and the man who brought his friend, Albert Einstein, to the IAS. Veblen, the nephew of noted American sociologist Thorsten Veblen, walked to the Institute from his home on Battle Road, as did Einstein from his house on Mercer Street.

What I am proposing is a “Veblen-Einstein” plan for faculty housing that would have the Institute purchase homes in the Veblen-Einstein neighborhood for faculty housing rather than build new housing on the historic Battlefield. All of these homes are within walking distance of Fuld Hall, the center of the Institute. Many of them are closer to Fuld Hall than the proposed Battlefield housing would be.

The only question becomes: How much would purchasing neighborhood homes be compared to building a new development? Let’s assume that it would cost $750,000 per unit to build new housing compared to $1,750,000 per home to purchase in the adjacent neighborhood. For the 15 units the Institute wants to build, that is a net difference of $15,000,000. How much of a sacrifice is that for the Institution?

According to the latest public tax filing made in 2009, the Institute’s endowment is roughly $550 million. With an operating budget of roughly $50 million per year this does not seem like an insurmountable sacrifice. (In practice, I believe the difference between purchasing houses in the Veblen-Einstein neighborhood and building a new development would be roughly $7,000,000.)

When asked at a Planning Board hearing, representatives of the Institute indicated that they had no financial estimate for their proposed Battlefield housing. But one thing is certain: to build new housing the Institute would have pay cash up front. If instead the Institute implemented the Veblen-Einstein plan they could take advantage of historically low mortgage rates and the Institute would have to spend far less cash than for building new homes.

Purchasing neighborhood homes would be a plus for the community as well, because this would support the tax base.

When the IAS proposed building over 250 housing units on land near the battlefield back in the 1990s, friends of the Institute suggested a different course and a conservation compromise was reached.

The same needs to occur today because sometimes the best friends are those that offer the most direct advice.

Carl Mayer
Battle Road

Toward A Clearer Understanding: Information on the Historic Context of the Battlefield Issue

To the Editor:

It might be useful to take a step back in understanding that the site of the Battle of Princeton counterattack was envisioned from the beginning to be a vital part of Princeton Battlefield State Park. In 1944, C.S. Sincerbeaux, a local well-respected civil engineer, prepared a map for the American Scenic and Historical Preservation Society showing Washington’s counterattack at the Battle of Princeton. He showed the counterattack to be on what is now the proposed faculty housing site. This map then became the basis for Governor Walter Edge’s Park boundary lines, and his parcel-by-parcel determination of what needed to be acquired to establish the Park — I have a copy of that map.

The governor had originally wanted the Federal government to create the Park, but with tight economic times at the end of World War II, and encroachment threatening the Battlefield, he rolled up his sleeves and committed to getting the job done and persuading the New Jersey legislature to pass the necessary appropriation. His representative, George Brakeley, who was also vice president and treasurer of Princeton University, then approached the Institute for Advanced Study and asked the Institute to contribute 36 acres to the project; that was in 1944. Governor Edge also sent a copy of the Sincerbeaux map to the Institute. The Institute, at that time indicated that it was favorably disposed to working with the governor in putting the Park together. Then, in 1945, the Institute purchased 129.99 acres from Robert Maxwell including the site of the counterattack — a site that Governor Edge passionately wanted to be in the Park. Later Mr. Maxwell gave his remaining property to the state, including a small parcel where General Mercer had fallen, which he sold to the state for $1. Mrs. Agnes Pyne Hudson gifted property to the Park in 1947. Other parcels were purchased, some acquired under the threat of eminent domain.

Negotiations with the Institute dragged on for 25 long years. Finally, in 1973, the IAS agreed to deed two parcels to the Park. One, a parcel of 12.264 acres was sold to the state, not gifted, for $335,000. This site bordered the Friend’s Meeting property and was the site of a previously proposed housing development. The other, in the amount of 19.38 acres, was on the east side of the Park between the Clarke House and the Institute. So far I have not been able to find a copy of the deed for this property.

Since that time there has continued to be interest by the state in adding additional pieces of the Battlefield to the Park. The public record includes a letter addressed to the Institute in 2002 from Alvin Payne, Acting Director of Parks and Forestry, who stated: “ I would like to request that the planning board and the institute re-evaluate this proposal to develop this land. I would like to recommend the Institute work with the state’s Green Acres program and allow the state to purchase these parcels.”

When an issue is as charged as the proposed Institute’s faculty housing project is, it is important to get as clear an historical understanding as possible.

Kip Cherry
Dempsey Avenue.
1st Vice President
Princeton Battlefield Society

January 25, 2012

Institute Housing-Battlefield Debate Not Local Issue, Which Is Contrary to Impression Given by IAS

To the Editor:

The IAS plan to build faculty housing on land that includes the Princeton Battlefield may seem like a local issue to Princeton, but it is not. Historians, both local and international, recognize that the Battle of Princeton was pivotal to the American Revolution. The actions of Washington at this battle added to his reputation and aided in his ability to lead the war effort. The sacrifice of the men who gave their lives was deemed heroic by their contemporaries. Those contemporaries went on to form the Republic we now enjoy.

A local issue it is not! The Institute would make it seem so, as if it were a question of neighbors disagreeing. The IAS has a local attorney and local architect representing them, but the Trustees of the Institute want that local impression because they are from Manhattan, Washington D.C., Chicago, California, Florida, London, Frankfurt, Geneva, Stockholm, Cambridge, and Budapest. This is a national issue  of respect, pride, and heritage.

I hope the Planning Board will deny approval.

J. Carney

Trustee, Princeton Battlefield Society

January 9, 2012

“Experiential Learning” Enhances Hun Lessons

Sophomore students of U.S. history honors from The Hun School of Princeton recently visited Princeton Battlefield State Park to further their understanding of the Battle of Princeton through “experiential learning.”

Experiential learning takes students out of a traditional learning environment and places them, as active participants, in a space that becomes their classroom. Hun students were encouraged to consider the environment of the battle, and to use that information to enhance traditional classroom lessons.

The class utilized the school’s extended fourth period, a two-hour long class that includes a break for lunch. “The extended-period allows us to take advantage of the historically significant spaces around us, and use them as our classroom,” said Ryan Hews, Upper School head and faculty member. “Location learning creates the opportunity for students to further participate in the learning process. And, nothing is more rewarding to me, as a teacher, than to have a student become excited about engaging in history, away from a book.”

Earlier in the semester, members of the class travelled to Massachusetts, where location learning took place in Plymouth, Boston, and Salem. “We are inspiring students to consider the world as their classroom and that learning extends beyond the daily schedule of classes,” said Mr. Hews. A trip to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania is scheduled for February.

Students in the U.S. history honors class left Princeton Battlefield with a heightened awareness and greater context of the events of January 3, 1777, and an appreciation for the importance of historical preservation and protection. Members of the class are planning to return to the State Park and volunteer to help maintain the memorial to the soldiers who fell in battle.

To learn more about Hun, visit www.hunschool.org.

 

December 21, 2011

FitzRandolph Descendant Suggests IAS Look for Alternative to Housing Plan

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Mark Scheibner (“Opponents of IAS Housing Plan Downplay Finding of Over 700 Agricultural Artifacts,” Town Topics, December 14, 2011). There are several issues in this letter which should not remain unopposed.

The Princeton Battlefield was not preserved for agricultural history; there are thousands of farms in New Jersey alone which would better suit such interests. What sets the Princeton Battlefield apart from other land in the state is the significance of George Washington’s victory over the British and the incomprehensible sacrifices which occasioned that campaign. The American Republic, as well as George Washington, was either going to live or die on that battlefield on the morning of January 3, 1777.

There is a glaring historical error in Mr. Sheibner’s letter concerning the common burial site of the battle’s dead. It is commemorated by a plaque in the park, but the grave itself is located on the southern side of the northernmost of three ponds near Drumthwacket. Its location might have been lost, as would the battlefield itself, if not for the foresight of Moses Taylor Pyne. Besides his interest in creating Princeton University from the foundering College of New Jersey, Pyne had an abiding interest in preserving the Princeton Battlefield. He saved it from developers in 1913. His granddaughter Agnes Pyne Hudson donated the land which became the Battlefield Park in 1946.

As a FitzRandolph descendant, the fact that my ancestor’s bones were excavated during the construction of Holder Hall and placed into its walls I find to be less offensive than the IAS plans. Woodrow Wilson displayed affection for the memory and the legacy of the FitzRandolphs. The IAS plans amount to desecration, as well as the destruction of an incalculably significant relic of American history — one that was carefully and almost miraculously preserved by generations of Princetonians. The IAS plan is at best self-interested and insensitive, if not a deliberate act of desecration. If the Battlefield’s use as farmland somehow diminished its sanctity, as Scheibner contends, a similar argument might be made that Arlington has lost its claim as sacred ground because its grass is mown. As for commemorating the sacrifices that bought America its liberty, the Battlefield at Princeton serves as no better example. The IAS ought to respect American history, preserve its dignity, and employ its intellectual resources to discover an alternative.

William Myers
Highland Park