The Spotlight’s March 22 online article Princeton’s Pool Referendum costs announced [also front page of this issue] provided some valuable food for thought, especially for those of us who would support a pool proposal more thoroughly worked out and more equitably funded.
But the statement: “Other short-comings of referendum planning included: - Non-residents of Area H were a stronger factor in the referendum than was anticipated” raises a very important issue.
Those of us who are Area H part-time residents pay as much taxes as anyone else, and bring as much business to town per person as town residents.
Those of us with multiple parcels would have been assessed several times as much as residents in town who have only one parcel, or who share a parcel, as in the case of some renters.
That we opposed the pool proposal as it stood cannot in all fairness be called a “short-coming” of the referendum.
The fact that we voted against the measure, and that Area H property owners voted in greater numbers and in a greater proportion than town residents shows how much the referendum concerned all of us, and would have effected all of us.
Hardly a “short-coming”?!
Nat Brown
Area H