These letters were originally published in the August 2018 Princeton Echo.
Note: the following letters are all written by Princeton residents and revolve around the upcoming school district referendum.
Pro: Proceed as planned
Voters can decide this fall whether they support an expansion and update of the facilities of the Princeton Public Schools. As a mother of two children, 11 and 14, I am well aware of the overcrowding at the middle and high schools. In many of my eighth grader’s classes this year there were 25 or even 30 children. There was hardly room to move, let alone get a good view of the board and teacher. Immediate action is necessary given the steadily increasing numbers of students.
It seems that a small, very vocal group of people who oppose this project have been mobilizing to prevent this referendum from taking place. This seems wrong to me and is not how a democracy should work. It should not be the loudest who decide, it should be the majority, and the majority is being asked at the vote this fall.
There are many people in town who are in favor of the investment; many people who think there is only one choice: We are all worried about the tax impact, but we need to invest in our schools and our children. But these people have not been speaking up because they are waiting for the vote this fall.
I encourage the Board to proceed with the referendum as planned. I hope that the investment can be made in a way that the tax impact will be as low as possible; I hope that the major tax impact will only be limited to three years. But there is never a good time to raise taxes. The time to act is now, while we can head off the worst overcrowding. We must act before we have kids in trailers, before we can no longer offer the curriculum the people in this district expect, and before our property values start going down because the schools are no longer a draw.
— Wiebke Martens
See the needs for yourself
I am asking the Princeton community to join me in supporting the upcoming school facilities referendum. My family moved to Princeton 15 years ago, in part due to the wonderful reputation of the schools. A product of public schools myself, it was important to me to raise my kids in a community that values public education.
I consider my four kids lucky to be able to attend the fine schools that Princeton has to offer. At the same time, I am embarrassed by the appalling conditions at Princeton High School. For those of you who think the district’s plan is extravagant and unnecessary, please open your eyes to the reality that our high school children face on a daily basis:
• Lunch for more than half of the students is typically picnic-style on the hallway floors due to an undersized cafeteria and lack of other common spaces where eating at a table might be an option.
• Exams in the Old Gym entail 80-90 degree indoor temperatures due to lack of air conditioning. Children falling ill from the heat and hospitalized due to mold. Imagine taking critical exams in these conditions.
• Brown liquid oozing from the ceiling of your classroom into a bucket that remains on the floor for months
• Classes filled to the point where there are not enough desks for the students, where some perch on the ledges by the windows or on the radiators
• Crowded hallways packed with students keeping you and your teacher from getting from one part of the building to another in time for the bell
If you choose to dismiss this as an exaggeration, I invite you to take the time to visit the school yourself.
Improving the high school facilities is not an option. Voting “yes” to both referendum questions is imperative. We must do what is right for the wellness of our kids. Great towns build great schools. Princeton High School will not continue to be great without improved facilities.
— Julie Ramirez
Con: Needs vs. wishes
I voted for the previous $80 million school referendum since it was the right thing to do in providing needed capital improvements for the future. Now 14 years later, we are being asked for an additional $130 million for some needed improvements, but others that are questionable.
As a project manager for the construction of seven schools at the NJ School Development Authority, I noted wasted expenditures as architects strove to create state-of-the-art schools, at our expense. Without adequate input from teachers, parents, students, and the community, design follows an architect’s assumptions. Architects are not educators. The proposed referendum needs more review from the Princeton community that will be responsible for a 30-year tax obligation for Princeton students and Cranbury high school students.
We need to approve priorities like security, AC, and the crowded conditions that exist now. But the wish list for $130 million needs further review of numerous BOE assumptions, such as student growth projections. Town Council has submitted an Affordable Housing Plan to meet the requirement of 472 apartments by proposing that developers construct an additional 1,888 market rate homes or apartments, resulting in extraordinary future student growth and perhaps another school bond issue in coming years. This is the equivalent of nearly nine Avalon Bay developments, regardless of how they are spread throughout Princeton.
The last referendum improvements to the high school resulted in lawsuits and compromised settlements that did not cover the total costs, with construction and design deficiencies that exist to this day. Let’s not rush into a $130 million concept that needs community and educator input.
Vote for a sensible plan that addresses needed improvements, not a plan that exceeds those of similar school districts by 300 percent.
— Peter Madison
Address critical needs 1st
Finally it appears that the Board of Education is “getting real.” Perhaps they saw a recent report that “between 2012 and 2016 a net $11.9 billion of income left New Jersey according to the IRS. Note: This equates to more than $1 billion in lost income tax revenue for New Jersey.” No wonder taxable income is leaving New Jersey, we have the highest property taxes in the country and one of the highest state income taxes.
Princeton Public Schools Superintendent Steve Cochrane wrote to families, staff, and members of the community on July 3 to say “At the meeting on July 10, the Board and I will be considering the merits of potentially dividing the referendum into two questions or into two separate referenda — one to be voted on this fall and another to be considered by the community in two or three years.” The “referendum” to which he refers, is a record setting $130 million, larger by three to six times, on a per pupil basis, than other school referenda in central and suburban New Jersey.
Count us strongly in favor of the latter, “two separate referenda — one to be voted on this fall and another to be considered by the community, in two or three years.” We agree that the Princeton Public Schools have facility needs. However, it would be highly irresponsible to give a $130 million blank check to a part-time, all-volunteer Board of Education that heretofore has only provided lip service to community “input.” Their track record is terrible as well; previous bond referendum spending has resulted in shoddy construction, cost overruns, and multiple lawsuits.
The fall referendum should be limited to addressing the critical facility needs of the Princeton Public Schools. These are estimated at 1) Safety/security, $5,142,760; 2) Fire suppression, $2,758,500; 3) Asbestos abatement, $2,100,000; 4) HVAC — Replace HV equipment, add air conditioning and electrical services, $11,827,800. These critical facility needs total $21,829,060. How about if we add in $5 million toward the $11,638,200 requested for athletics, including new fields and gym upgrades? Now we arrive at $26,829,060 for the fall referendum. That sounds about the right for a community of our size.
In two or three years, when most previous debt is repaid, our enrollment numbers are confirmed and include students from the affordable housing requirement, we can consider a referendum for the expansion needs of the schools.
— Daniel J. Dart
The letter above refers to the possibility of holding the second referendum two or three years after the first one. The board decided to hold both of the referenda in November.
,
