Dillon Gym memberships
We are writing concerning the current decision of Princeton U. to eliminate Dillon Gym memberships for the general public and their choice not to grandfather in existing members who want to continue.
Since this decision was initially sprung upon members in late June, a number of reasons have been floated. Initially, it was due to overcrowding. Then, they simply wanted the facility to be exclusive to university students, faculty, and personnel. Now, it seems to be due to the influx of additional students in the near, but not immediate, future and the impact they will have while in school and after graduation. At that time, if still in the Princeton area, they, their spouses, and potentially their children can all join Dillon. Theoretically, the number of current members from the public will ruin this long-range plan, hence the decision to eliminate public memberships now. We think it’s safe to say that most people plan for the future, but this seems to stretch the meaning of the phrase.
We are suggesting a solution. By grandfathering in those who are already members (approximately 100 people) and closing the books to accepting new ones the number of those from the public will automatically be self-limiting. The membership list will naturally decrease through attrition as people age, move out of the area, or join other gyms, as some already have. Once a person leaves the ranks they will not be allowed to return. In so doing, the university will build a mountain of goodwill, show that it is truly community-minded, and demonstrate to everyone that it is willing to compromise on this important issue.
As stated in previous letters on this topic, many of the current public members have been going to Dillon for decades and have become close friends with those who are part of the university. They’ve shared holidays, suffered loss, and watched children grow up together. Neither party wants to give that up. We believe that what we are proposing is a sensible long-range plan that can work for everyone.
— Brian Philippi, Jane Milrod,
Susan Bristol, Peter Farrell, Shaness Farrell, Regina Kenen, Stephanie Majdziak, Ronald Berlin, Kathryn Kueny, Piper Huggins, Benedicte Callan sexual or gender identification, Dreamers path to citizenship, and national community service options, Mr. Welle took questions. In conclusion Welle said his job is to represent his constituents’ needs, not special interests.
I respect the strong convictions of those including Mr. Smith who are pro-life. Yet, a personal and religious choice should not become a government intrusion limiting the personal choice and religious convictions of everyone. That is just one of the major contrasts between Mr. Welle and Mr. Smith. This view is made all the more suspect given that Smith and many Republicans are vested in Donald Trump who daily assaults the golden rule. Witness the excessive Trump bullying tweets and pronouncements, the corruption and greed that has characterized his cabinet choices, and policies that enrich corporations and the wealthy while exploding the deficit, a harbinger of diminished social programs and no safety net to those most in need.
You would think that Mr. Smith would be seen and heard given Trump’s assault on personal decency and the common good. In his newsletter, light on the issues, there is no voice on the debacle in Puerto Rico, nor advocacy for fixing the ACA, nor concerns about the exploding deficit. No growth positions articulated nor is a debate with Mr. Welle in the offing, as Smith avoids debate. And worse, Mr. Smith who highlights his efforts to reunite American children abducted overseas is deafeningly silent on the child separation that was the Trump/ Sessions policy and practice at the border, still a fiasco.
Mr. Smith’s absence, both physically and morally in these times of crisis and choice, is contrasted to the earnest, well thought out, and articulated positions of Mr. Welle, and his record of service to our country. Regardless of party or special interest, common sense says Mr. Welle should be elected the next representative for NJ CD 4. — Jonathan Shutman, Ed.D.,
Ocean, NJ
Send your letters to the editor for publication to Letters@ Trentonian.com.