The Hopewell Valley News recently asked the two candidates for Hopewell Borough Council the following question, which also was asked of the four candidates for Hopewell Township Committee. It is:
During the summer, the Diocese of Trenton, owner of the now vacant 360-acre Hopewell Township tract on which the former St. Michael’s Orphanage was located (off Princeton Avenue), revealed a plan to place a housing development much of which would be for senior residents on the land. The proposal calls for Hopewell Borough’s annexation of a 137-acre portion of the tract on which housing would be built. State statute says the Diocese would have to go to Hopewell Township first with the annexation proposal. Annexation then would have to be approved by Hopewell Borough Council as well. Plans for the land, which is located close to the Aunt Molly Road SBRSA sewer plant that serves Hopewell Borough, also include leaving the Hopewell Township portion of the acreage as open space and the building of a large meeting facility for St. Alphonsus Roman Catholic Church of Hopewell.
What do you think of this proposal and, as a member of the Hopewell Borough Council, would you back it?
Alice C. Huston My response to this question may be as labyrinthine as the question is serpentine. However, I know of another proposal and I have a different idea which I will state at the end. First, let’s examine this proposal. On July 2, 2001, David Roskos, attorney for the Trenton Diocese, owners of the St. Michael’s property, asked to present a "conceptual development plan" to Borough Council.
Already confused? Wondering what a conceptual plan is doing in front of a council before being presented to the Planning Board? Read on. His presentation, he assured us, would outline the benefits to Hopewell Valley if the borough would annex a 137-acre portion of his client’s property. Curiosity piqued? Thinking what could possibly favor the Valley enough for the borough to open up a can of worms like large scale annexation? Read on.
He further stated that although the formal de-annexation and annexation process begins with the township, he’d first like the borough’s input. Ah. Now it’s clear that the borough has been chosen as a field test site for this grand scheme. Second, and skipping over the open space promise, is the even more dazzling senior housing promise. The housing development, "much of which would be for senior residents" as the question reads, needs further scrutiny. In a legal document dated Feb. 27, 2001, that council received that night, one page refers to the housing development as age- restricted housing units. On another page, the development is to contain "275 senior/patio units at a density of 43 to 54 dwelling units per acre or 210 single family/patio home units at a density of 2.5 to 3 units per acre."
Elizabeth McKenzie, planner for the project, and Mr. Roskos said the proposal calls for 152 townhouses and 38 single family homes. Townhouse units at 2,000 square feet, two stories, with two bedrooms would sell for $217,000, with taxes at about $6,000. Single family homes with four bedrooms would sell for $450,000. The question remains whether or not this will be a boon to the borough’s seniors and families with children? At first glance, townhouse prices and the taxes on them seem about the same, but certainly not lower that existing borough homes. However, seniors on fixed incomes would find this price out of reach. Further, 2000 square feet is probably upsizing rather than downsizing, and a two-story home right next to many others means privacy and neighborhoods are left behind.
Using my own family as an example, paying $450,000 for a new home, even to live in our beloved borough, is far too expensive. In conclusion, this proposal is predicated on wealthy families buying high- priced homes so that the developer can sell age-restricted townhouses to people of an exclusive age who can afford the price. Already this is a formula that excludes moderate income families and seniors who would have to spend more rather than save to live in Hopewell Borough.
Mr. Roskos said that as a ratable this development would yield $500,000 a year. However, factoring in the school valuation tax, the borough is left with $65,000 a year. Is this worth the cost to our infrastructure, water and services? Or, as many of us have said, wouldn’t finding a business to take over the Kooltronics site yield a better ratable ?
And lastly, there is the promise this proposal makes that if the township and the borough work together to de-annex and annex a portion of this land, double that amount of land will remain as open space forever. So, half of the price for all that open space is the borough’s willingness to agree to big scale annexation which, by the way, in our past we’ve declined to do even on the smallest scale. The second half of the price is providing sewer hook up, water, infrastructure and support services. Indeed, 260 acres of open space would be a big favor to our Valley. All that land acquisition to a "Greenie" like myself is seductive. However, I don’t believe it’s right to say "yes" to large scale annexation after saying no to Kings Path and individual homeowners who have inquired about water and /or sewer hook up outside borough boundaries. And, I don’t believe it’s wise to deplete our water, or weaken the existing infrastructure. I do not support the above proposal, and I would vote against it. The right thing to do is to purchase the entire property at fair market value based on 1998 2-acre zoning still current in 2001.
A private group has made the Diocese such an offer, and I support their initiative. I also agree that St. Alphonsus Parish should receive their request for land because doing this could be a win/win for the parish and the borough. In exchange for this land, I would hope the parish would build a small amount of subsidized and, therefore affordable senior housing as well as a recreation center for teens, families and seniors. I believe it is the responsibility of the borough along with the Diocese, and agencies like the county, state and federal governments and private donors to contribute to such a project. In the meantime, anyone interested in exploring affordable housing options for Hopewell Borough can contact Mayor George Padgett at Borough Hall, 466-2636, or myself at 466-2013 or [email protected].
David Mackie Any future deliberations on this issue by the Hopewell Borough Council will, of course, be a matter of public record. It is my understanding that negotiations are currently under way among representatives of Hopewell Township, private landowners, and the Diocese of Trenton regarding the preservation of a major portion of the St. Michael’s Orphanage tract. To avoid making statements that could in any way be detrimental to those negotiations, I will refrain from commenting on the specific proposal presented by the Diocese of Trenton to Hopewell Borough last summer. However, I would like to make some general comments on two important policy issues raised by that proposal:
Firstly, I strongly support efforts to preserve a "green belt" around Hopewell Borough. I am committed to working with representatives of Hopewell Township to achieve that goal and I support their efforts to preserve as much of the St. Michael’s Orphanage tract as possible. Large-scale development is, for all practical purposes, an irreversible process. Therefore, the future quality of life in the Hopewell Valley will depend in large part on the land-use decisions that we make today. Our continued success in this regard will require a major financial commitment on the part of both the public and private sectors.
Secondly, it is essential that we expand and maintain our stock of affordable housing for senior citizens, people with disabilities, and people living on fixed or limited incomes, so that all of our residents can afford to remain within our community. That obligation extends beyond the requirements imposed by the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). We must work both to preserve the existing range of housing options available in the borough, and also to create new affordable housing wherever possible. Using a $200,000 Small Cities Grant, 10 moderate-income apartments have been rehabilitated so far in Hopewell Borough, thanks to a cooperative effort between the Planning Board, the Borough Council, and local property owners (an effort for which I claim no credit whatsoever).
We need to find additional opportunities to create housing in the borough that is both affordable and meets the physical needs of our citizens. I am willing to at least consider any proposal that would help to meet this goal. In principle, I would support the establishment of age and/or income eligibility restrictions for a limited number of affordable housing units in the borough, to ensure that housing is available to those who are truly in need. However, I would not support age restrictions on market-rate housing. I believe that such practices are inherently discriminatory, regardless of the alleged fiscal benefits, and are, therefore, incompatible with the character of Hopewell. I look forward to a continued positive dialogue regarding the future of the St. Michael’s tract.

