PACKET EDITORIAL, May 30
By:
On the surface, the question would seem to be a simple one: Do the residents of Princeton Borough want to adopt a 1-cent tax dedicated to protection and preservation of open space, or don’t they?
Alas, in Princeton Borough, nothing is ever quite so simple.
There appear to be at least three separate proposals kicking around at the moment, all relating to the imposition of a 1-cent open-space tax in Princeton Borough. Princeton Township already has such a tax, which adds 1 cent per $100 of assessed property value to the local tax rate and dedicates the proceeds to an open-space fund. The fund can be used for a variety of purposes, including the purchase of land, development and maintenance of recreational facilities, preservation of historic sites and leveraging state money.
The proposal favored by the Princeton Environmental Commission, a body made up of representatives from Princeton Borough and Princeton Township, would pattern Princeton Borough’s open-space tax after Princeton Township’s. If approved by the voters at referendum, the money from Princeton Borough’s open-space fund would be used, like Princeton Township’s, for the widest range of purposes.
A second proposal, favored by the Friends of Princeton Open Space, a nonprofit advocacy group, would put a more limited ballot question before the voters. It would restrict the use of Princeton Borough open-space money to land acquisition, recreation and debt service. Specifically excluded from the Friends’ plan would be the use of Princeton Borough open-space funds for historic preservation.
A third proposal, put forward by Borough Council President Roger Martindell, would give voters authority to approve a 1-cent open-space tax but allow the Borough Council to suspend imposition of the tax in any given year at the governing body’s discretion. Mr. Martindell has asked the borough solicitor to research state law to determine the legality of this unusual scheme.
We support the idea of a 1-cent open-space tax in Princeton Borough. Although the borough has precious little open space left within its own boundaries, it does share many joint recreational facilities, both active and passive, with Princeton Township. Its residents make use of the open space in the immediate vicinity of the borough, such as the Institute Woods, the Herrontown Woods, Mountain Lakes, miles of bike and hiking trails and the like. Using a dedicated source of borough funds to support the acquisition, development and maintenance of both open space and recreational facilities that are shared by borough and township residents makes a lot of sense.
We also believe it would be a mistake to limit or restrict the way this money could be used. Perhaps acquiring land is a much higher priority for Princeton Borough at the moment than preserving historic sites, but that is no reason to eliminate historic preservation from the list of purposes to which open-space money may be committed. Times change, priorities change and the open-space referendum should be crafted in a way that reflects this reality.
We share Mr. Martindell’s distaste for the notion of dedicated taxes in general. Too often, earmarking tax revenues for a particular purpose is simply a way of letting elected representatives elude their responsibility to make tough choices about where tax dollars should be spent and where they shouldn’t. But in this case, it seems to us that 1 cent per $100 of assessed value is a small price to pay for preserving open space in this densely populated area — especially if the commitment of this money is approved directly by the voters at referendum. And that commitment should be binding, not subject to the whim of a governing body that may, for short-term political purposes, be inclined to favor a feel-good tax cut over needed maintenance of a ball field or purchase of an out-of-the-way piece of farmland.