Comments on: About https://planetprinceton.com Princeton, New Jersey's top community news website, serving the region for more than a decade. Mon, 28 Aug 2023 02:10:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.1 By: Robert Landau https://planetprinceton.com/about/#comment-13968 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:18:00 +0000 https://planetprinceton.com//?page_id=2#comment-13968 Krystal ,Landaus wants to send you an invitation to New Ram Unveiling [Its a cute card] ,Please forward mailing address. Robert

]]> By: m head https://planetprinceton.com/about/#comment-13962 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:35:00 +0000 https://planetprinceton.com//?page_id=2#comment-13962 5 reasons to vote against the School bond referendum on 24th September.
1) The school system underwent significant reconstruction from 2003-2007 as part of an $86 million project to renovate the Princeton Regional School District’s school buildings. I assume, but have not able to confirm, that we are still paying for this? The new proposal makes no reference to this past investment and does not satisfactorily explain why this additional expense in the form of another bond is needed in addition.
2) The proposed expenditure appears to have a substantial maintenance component and ‘minor technology’ upgrades. This type of expense should be part of the annual operating budget associated with running the school system. A lot of it based upon the descriptions provided seems a stretch to meet the states ’10 years extended useful life requirement’. A 10 year bond issue is capitalizing operating expense and understating the true cost of running the school system.
3) A significant portion of the expense appears to be for athletic facilities. How necessary is all this? Is fundraising an alternative?
Proposed in the plan:
Track, turf and bleacher replacements
Refurbished practice fields
Select locker replacements
Team room improvements
New flooring, ceiling and fixtures in locker room
Energy-efficient gym lighting
Refurbished baseball fields

At the start of the 2006-07 school year at the high school, the new gymnasium opened. During the summer of 2007, installation of tennis courts and work on the new state-of-the-art fitness center took place. We do not lack facilities, it feels like a question of priorities.
4) This $10.9 million expense excluding interest, will in addition result in taxpayers paying over $1 million of interest over the life of the loan. This expense represents over $3500 per pupil.
5) There has been no public discussion or debate. There is no explanation of what the different parts of the proposal cost. The taxpayers deserve better. There is limited awareness of the date for the vote, it is
Monday September 24th
That’s why we should Vote No on Monday

]]>