GUEST OPINION: Updike parcel is a good buy for town

The Supporters of Updike speak out

   Last week the Cranbury Township Committee rejected a proposal to purchase the Updike property. The purpose of this article is to ask the committee to reconsider its decision and vote to acquire before it’s too late.
   The proposal provided that the township would purchase the property for $3.3 million and be reimbursed for $2.8 million from state and county funds. Of that amount, $1.7 million would be reimbursed immediately and the remaining $1.1 million would be reimbursed gradually over the next two to five years as state Green Acres funds became available.
   In rejecting the proposal, Mayor Michael Mayes and Committeeman Alan Danser expressed several concerns. They were concerned that the price was too high and that the purchase would jeopardize other "higher priority" possible purchases. They were also concerned about the added debt that would be incurred, especially in light of the township’s borrowing limits. Finally, they noted that Harvey Moskowitz, the township planner, thought that the purchase did not follow good planning principals.
   The cost to the township would be $500,000 plus borrowing costs. That amount can be viewed from several perspectives.
   First, the township contribution would be about 15 percent of the total purchase price, which compares favorably to about a 20 percent contribution for recent farmland preservation projects. This amount could be reduced even further by the private donations from Friends of Updike, a community group that has already received pledges of about $100,000.
   Second, the cost to the township for each development lot would be $32,000. This is about the same that the township has paid to preserve each development lot in recent farmland preservation transactions, (about $5,000 per acre for property zoned for one house per 6 acres). Moreover, in this transaction the township would actually own the property, as opposed to creating deed restrictions, the procedure that is used in the farmland preservation transactions.
   Third, the total number of lots remaining in the township that could still be developed is about 100 — including Updike and Fischer. If the township spent $30,000 to preserve each of those lots — a happy but unlikely scenario – the total cost would be $3 million. That amount compares very favorably to the $6.7 million that the township is obligated to pay to South Brunswick this year for sewer infrastructure. The township can afford to preserve all of the remaining open space; in fact, it would be cheaper than development.
   Based strictly on cost to the township, we should not hesitate to purchase Updike. Also, cost considerations alone should not make Updike a low priority. Additionally, there are other reasons to consider Updike a fairly high priority. For one thing, there is no property that can be divided into more development lots. Reinhardt might yield the same number, 16. After that, Cohen and Protinick in the far northwest corner of the township might yield 12 properties each.
   Updike may not be the highest priority for preservation, but it should certainly be among the top candidates. Even so, the argument that we should forego buying Updike so that we might be able to buy another property, for example, Fischer, is worth exploring.
   There are several possible outcomes to the resolution of the preservation of Updike and Fischer. The best outcome would be that both get preserved. If we reject this last chance to preserve Updike, we will make that outcome impossible. The worst outcome would be that neither property is preserved, which might happen if we now reject Updike. That leaves the possibility of buying just one.
   The township has a good proposal for Updike – $1 million in county funds plus Green Acres funds for more than half the purchase price. Also, there is $250,000 from Delaware and Raritan Greenways that would accelerate the payments from Green Acres. On the other hand, there are a number of uncertainties surrounding the purchase of Fischer. We don’t know if we will have the opportunity to offer to buy the property, or even if it will be necessary. We don’t have a price for the property. We don’t know how much funding we could get from the county. We would get Green Acres funding, but if we do not strike a deal this year, we will lose one year of funding. Finally, we will certainly lose this year’s funding from D & R Greenways. If we buy both Updike and Fischer there is a good chance that we could receive funding from D&R for both properties. If we buy just Fischer we might not get any D&R funding.
   Even with all the uncertainty about Fischer, we might still be able to buy both.
   Sacrificing Updike for the possibility of preserving Fischer doesn’t make sense.
   Another Committee objection is that the town planner, Harvey Moskowitz, feels that purchasing Updike does not follow good planning principals. Mr. Moskowitz is a good planner and has offered much good advice to the township. He can always be counted to offer a view that is based on his concept of good planning, not political expediency. However, as he himself has frequently pointed out, his input is not necessarily the only consideration. In fact, in December, 2000, in opposition to the recommendation of Mr. Moscowitz, the Planning Board voted unanimously to place the Updike parcel in open space on the Master Plan.
   One reason for not following his advice now is that by foregoing Updike, we will create an unnecessary impediment to some future purchases. We really can afford to preserve all remaining open space. However, if we reject Updike now, any future proposal will have to be "better" than Updike, or also be rejected.
   We elected members of the Township Committee to provide leadership and use their best judgment on thorny issues like this one. Michael Mayes ands Alan Danser have displayed admirable courage in standing up for what they believe on this issue in spite of strong opposition. However, they should keep in mind an old proverb: "If you can keep your cool when all about you people are losing theirs, maybe you don’t understand the problem." There has been remarkably strong public outpouring of support for preserving Updike, including petitions, pledges of private money, and large turnouts at public meetings. Now it’s up to the Township Committee.
   It is not too late! One more time, we urge the Township Committee to please reconsider the purchase of Updike.
Peter Turner, Matthew Long and Michael Dulin live in Cranbury.