Municipality responds to Concerned Citizens of Princeton lawsuit.
By: Jennifer Potash
Opponents of the downtown Princeton Borough garage had a chance to protest the garage last year and missed it, according to the borough’s response to a lawsuit seeking to halt the project.
In answer to a lawsuit filed by downtown garage opponents Concerned Citizens of Princeton, the borough argues any referendum on the project is illegal and the public had a 45-day period after the borough declared the site an area in need of redevelopment to contest the designation.
Concerned Citizens of Princeton filed a lawsuit Jan. 10 claiming the borough used the state’s redevelopment law erroneously in declaring the project site an area in need of redevelopment. The suit asks the court to nullify the borough’s $13.5 million bond ordinance for the municipal portions of the project and order that the project be subject to referendum.
The lawsuit also challenges the borough’s use of a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangement, or PILOT, with developer Nassau HKT Associates, contending the payment will adversely affect Princeton Township taxpayers and shortchange the Princeton Regional School District. PILOT arrangements are permitted under the state redevelopment law.
The borough filed its response Friday in Mercer County Superior Court.
Borough Attorney Michael J. Herbert said opponents have the right under New Jersey law to lodge complaints up to 45 days after a site is designated an area in need of rehabilitation.
Mr. Herbert said the point of the 45-day period is to protect the rights of citizens to raise objections and prevent overturning municipal actions after considerable time and money have been invested in a project.
"The borough relied on the designation of an area in need of redevelopment," Mr. Herbert said, and has spent about $700,000 on the project since the declaration in February 2002.
R. William Potter, the attorney for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, said Mr. Herbert did not mention cases in which New Jersey courts extended the deadline "where there was significant public interest in contesting the issue."
Mr. Potter argued in the lawsuit the borough improperly declared the two municipal parking lots an area in need of redevelopment without determining whether the site meets the statutory requirements of "blight."
Mr. Herbert called that argument "a red herring," pointing out the Legislature, in revising the redevelopment law in 1992, made a clear decision in dropping the "blight" designation.
Mr. Potter said he submitted an amended complaint Friday with an additional count, arguing the borough did not provide the public with adequate financial information before voting on the bond ordinance Dec. 17.
The borough is requesting a Feb. 7 court date but no hearing has been scheduled by Superior Court, Mr. Potter said.

