To the Editor:

Peter Madison’s letter [“Former Member of Planning Board Faults Frequent Lawsuits Initiated by Self Interest,” Mailbox, March 18] displays the same contempt for contrary opinion that he exhibited as a Planning Board member.

According to Mr. Madison, “a foundation of democracy” is our agreement to be governed by the “wishes of the majority.” That is sophomoric nonsense. Our Constitution is distinguished by the many protections it affords minorities. Our citizens are guaranteed certain inalienable rights. Those rights extend to property. “Democracies” that function as Mr. Madison suggests devolve quickly into tyrannies. “Majority rule” is the rallying cry of the mob and the argument of despots, both of which offer unverified claims of “majority support” to justify trampling over those with opposing viewpoints. Closely related is the heretical assertion that the “golden rule” is “he who has the gold makes the rules.”

Mr. Madison boasts that he and his fellow solons labor to divine the will of the “majority of Princeton residents” and to determine “what is best for the entire community.” What stunning conceit, and how utterly naive.

It is far from clear that all residents should be entitled to vote on all issues, or that their votes should be equally weighed. The Master Plan, e.g., seeks to preserve the “green belt” that was formerly known as the Township. Well and good, but should green belt residents be permitted to blight our downtown with high density fire traps that loom like vultures over established middle class neighborhoods? I don’t think so.

Nor do I think that municipal officials deserve our deference when they permit historic designations to be disregarded, public assets to be turned to private use, and national monuments to be encroached upon.

Does Mr. Madison not see the irony in our taxing ourselves to preserve open space, while he and his fellow [former] Planning Board members rezone Springdale Golf Course for ten story buildings?

Does he not appreciate the extent to which selective enforcement of the law — in our habit of delivering spot zoning to favored constituents — is encouraging a corrosive cynicism?

Yes, elected and appointed officials devote “considerable thought and time” to the affairs of our town — but they are not alone in doing so. For the rest of us, “self interest” is a motivation only to the extent of a desire to preserve, in recognizable form, a town that we consider to be special. When our municipal officials behave like tyrants or toadies, our only recourse is to litigate.

What is “sad” is not the fact of our litigation but the frequent need for it — and the mismatch between shallow pocketed plaintiffs and officials who too often mistake dollars for sense.

Peter Marks

Moore Street