Planet Princeton was created by veteran journalist Krystal Knapp as an online forum for all things Princeton. Krystal has been featured in various local, regional, and national publications for comment about Princeton issues.

Planet Princeton was created out of an awareness that the Princeton community needs a central place on the web where we can share news, events and community concerns. The biggest contributors to the success of Planet Princeton are our readers. Your participation makes this site a true online community and destination for breaking news, features, and local event information.

At Planet Princeton we promise to never mask paid advertising as news like some other local sites do. We won’t mention any names, but there are local sites out there that try to pass off paid ads and press releases as news. At Planet Princeton we do not receive cash or in-kind compensation from any company we write about. This means we pay for our own meals when we review a restaurant and buy our own ingredients when we cook.

Comment Policy:

Click here to read the Planet Princeton comment policy.

Krystal Knapp was previously a staff writer at The Trenton Times and was the editor of an English language news digest in Beirut, Lebanon. Her stories have appeared in the Star Ledger, the Washington Times and other national and regional publications and have been syndicated through the Newhouse News Service. A native of Detroit, Krystal has a bachelor’s degree in German Studies from Smith College. She has taken numerous journalism courses at New York University, The New School, Rutgers University and The College of New Jersey. She was a long-time volunteer at Harvard University’s Nieman Narrative Journalism Conference and has been a seminar participant at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. She is a member of Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Religion News Writers Association. An avid cyclist, she participates in the annual Anchor House Ride for Runaways and the Battle Against Hunger bike ride.

Letters to the editor and news should be sent to editor @ Letters should be less than 750 words.

Krystal Knapp can be reached at krystal @ or (609) 375-8920.

2 Responses

  • Krystal ,Landaus wants to send you an invitation to New Ram Unveiling [Its a cute card] ,Please forward mailing address. Robert

  • 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

Comments are closed.