Letter to the Editor: October 26th, 2012

Assembly Bill 2586 will deal a critical blow

Regarding “State law may let U. expand without local approval” (Monday, September 17, 2012)

If passed, A2586 would exempt private universities and colleges from complying with zoning. This would be a nightmare for Princeton, Plainsboro, West Windsor and Lawrence, as well as other municipalities with large private university campuses. And, if A2586 is passed, the exemptions likely will not stop there — private secondary schools, hospitals, daycare centers and a myriad of others with “public missions” can be counted on to demand their exemptions quickly.

In spite of the respect and affection we may have for private universities, such as Princeton or Rider or the Princeton Seminary, they are, relative to their towns, mammoth financial institutions with an appetite for development. Zoning exists to protect individual residents and a town’s quality of life, and without it we open our communities to rampant and unconstrained development — not just from large educational buildings, but from ANY type of commercial building that a university might conceive to be a good investment. A2586 allows for local zoning and local master plans to be ignored with total impunity.

The supposed “justification” for A2586 is that state universities are exempt from local land use regulations. NOT TRUE. State universities are subject to regulation and oversight through the State budgetary process, which inevitably includes land use considerations. There is no such transparency and public control over private universities. The idea that private universities need to have equalized standing is a COMPLETE FABRICATION.

In the midst of the final confusing moments of passing the State Budget, the bill passed the Senate and is now in the Assembly Higher Education Committee, which will be meeting on Nov. 8. For more information please go to the League of Municipalities website - http://www.njslom.org/letters/2012-0829-A2586-S1534.html.

Kip Cherry

Dempsey Avenue

Princeton

Avoidable errors in reporting about First Lady

Regarding “First lady Michelle Obama ’85 has rebuffed invitations from Princeton administration” (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)

Because The Daily Princetonian followed its policy of not accepting information it is provided in writing, it made a number of avoidable errors and conveyed a misleading impression in its Oct. 24 article about first lady Michelle Obama ’85.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The ‘Prince’ claimed that “University officials made at least six direct overtures to return ... or speak,” but its own reporting only cited two confirmed requests, one of which was accepted.

What in fact happened was that early in the Obama administration we were asked to coordinate all requests from the University through my office. (Contrary to the ‘Prince’’s reporting, all interactions with the first lady’s office from that point on were centralized.)

Our conversations have always been cordial as we tried to identify the right occasion for a visit that would fit both her schedule and ours. (Remember that under our schedule only about half the weeks of the year are available.) The pattern was never one of proposal and rejection but rather one of discussion about options. I believe it is disappointing to both sides that we haven’t found the right occasion yet, but it is not for a lack of trying or of good will.

When University President Tilghman visited the first lady’s chief of staff, it was simply to get acquainted. No specific requests were made. This and more could have been in the ‘Prince’’s coverage if it didn’t have a policy of not accepting information in writing.

Robert K. Durkee

Vice President and Secretary

Editor-in-chief’s response

Regarding “First lady Michelle Obama ’85 has rebuffed invitations from Princeton administration” (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)

University Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee ’69 chose to decline to be interviewed for the article. Nevertheless, the additional information he provides is consistent with our coverage, and his challenges to the accuracy of our article are not supported by our reporting.

University officials were given multiple opportunities to comment as early as a week before publication. I was personally in contact with both Durkee and University Spokesperson Martin Mbugua in the 48 hours prior to publication regarding the specific focus of the article, and I repeatedly requested a University response.

Durkee was made aware that, if he chose not to be interviewed, the article would indicate as such. ‘Prince’ policy requires that all interviews be conducted in person or over the phone, a fact that editors have communicated to University officials. Exceptions are only granted in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present in this case.

To address Durkee’s specific points: The University was notified we would report the White House meeting, but it formally declined to provide any information beyond a brief comment by the director of government affairs.

Durkee’s statement about the centralization of outreach efforts is consistent with our reporting. Before the administration change, efforts were initiated from other points in the University.

Finally, the article notes that “at least six direct overtures” took place. This conclusion is based on information from two dozen people, some of whom were personally involved in outreach to Obama.

We continue to prioritize the accuracy of our work.

Henry Rome

Editor-in-Chief