To the Editor:

I am writing to clarify that all of the legal efforts “Save the Dinky” has pursued have focused on the goal of preserving Princeton’s in-town rail station and the easement that guarantees public transit service to a public street. For this reason, our organization did not participate in the cases challenging the zoning ordinances. We have always said the University could build a beautiful arts campus while maintaining a direct rail link to University Place.

When the zoning ordinances were debated, University Vice President Bob Durkee told Borough Council and Township Committee that the Dinky terminus would be moved regardless of the zoning. Mr. Durkee said that the choice was between new arts buildings and no more Dinky station on University Place or some other less desirable project and no more Dinky station. He said the University’s 1984 contract with NJ Transit gave it the unilateral right to call for the move. NJ Transit officials agreed. The Township’s lawyer also said he agreed.

The judge in our contract case ruled that the 1984 contract did not give the University the unilateral right to move the station. He said the decision was NJ Transit’s all along. He ruled for the University because of a letter from NJ Transit’s executive director agreeing to the move. We have appealed that ruling. We have also appealed a last-minute decision last summer by NJ Transit’s Board that rubber-stamped the project based on the 1984 contract.

Through the whole controversy over the plan to abandon the Dinky Station, NJ Transit has never held a public hearing to show why the plan its executive director agreed to is in the best interests of its passengers. Now that it is clear that the University did not have the unilateral right to make this happen, the public deserves to hear why NJ Transit agreed to it.

More information can be found on our website, www.savethedinky.org.

Anita Garoniak

Harris Road