Challenge to borough project set to go before Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg on Feb. 21.
By: Jennifer Potash
As Princeton Borough Mayor Marvin Reed prepares to sign a developer’s agreement paving the way for a new downtown garage, apartments, retail space and a plaza, opponents are urging him to wait until a legal challenge is heard by the courts.
"I believe it behooves the borough to wait to sign any agreement until the court reviews the case," said Robert Zagoria, co-counsel for Concerned Citizens of Princeton, who filed a lawsuit Jan. 10 seeking to halt the project. "There is a strong likelihood that we will prevail."
Mercer County Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg will hold a hearing Feb. 21 on the matter in Trenton.
If the borough inks the agreement, which could later be undone by a court, then the taxpayers would be responsible for paying a sizable sum to the developer, Mr. Zagoria said.
Mayor Reed said he expects to sign the agreement with developer Nassau HKT Associates LLC this week. The Borough Council approved the agreement Jan. 21.
Borough Attorney Michael J. Herbert said he sent a letter "politely declining" Mr. Zagoria’s request.
"As (the borough’s) response sets forth, we believe their complaint is without merit," Mr. Herbert said.
Robert Goldsmith, special counsel to the borough for the garage project, said that thus far the borough is responsible to the developer only for design costs. Other reimbursements included in the developer’s agreement should the borough choose to withdraw from the project would not apply if a court overturned the agreement, Mr. Goldsmith said.
The Concerned Citizens group, represented by attorneys R. William Potter and Mr. Zagoria, has not sought an injunction from the courts to stop the borough from moving forward with the project.
The opponents contend that the borough improperly declared the two municipal parking lots off Spring Street an area in need of redevelopment, and claim the state Legislature never intended the redevelopment law to apply to wealthy communities such as Princeton Borough.
The borough contends it properly applied the area in need of redevelopment designation and the opponents’ opportunity to challenge the designation lapsed months ago. State law allows citizens to challenge the redevelopment designation up to 45 days after a governing body takes action. The Princeton Borough Council approved the designation in February 2002.
Two court decisions on the state Redevelopment and Housing Law provide some insight to the opposing viewpoints on the borough’s redevelopment project.
After South Orange declared its central business district an area in need of redevelopment to promote redevelopment of a train station with a parking garage and retail shops opponents challenged the designation based on insufficient facts.
A state appellate court sided with the municipality, finding the area in need of redevelopment designation was based on "substantial evidence."
Both Concerned Citizens and the borough argue this court decision bolsters their respective cases.
The "substantive evidence" finding is significant because it means when elected municipal officials act within the law’s designation provisions, the court cannot substitute its own judgment even if it believes the decision "is not good public policy," Mr. Herbert said.
Mr. Potter contends the case firmly links blight and area in need of redevelopment as synonymous terms.
"The court said no way that you can’t have one without the other," he said.
Mr. Potter also points to another case, Spruce Manor Enterprise v. Borough of Bellmawr in Camden County, in which the municipality sought to tear down a fully occupied, and otherwise sound, apartment complex. Bellmawr argued that the 30-year-old complex did not conform to present-day density and parking standards and declared the site an area in need of redevelopment.
The court held that Bellmawr did not present enough evidence that the apartment complex met unhealthy living or working conditions under state law.
Mr. Potter believes this case also has applicability to Princeton. "What the borough determined that the Park & Shop lot, which has provided revenue to the borough for 40 years, is obsolete well, I think that’s absurd," he said.
Mr. Herbert argues that the borough’s case is quite different from the Bellmawr case, as there is a clear, established record in Princeton of all the municipal public hearings as well as detailed studies and reports on the site. Also, unlike Bellmawr, the borough is not seeking to condemn private property, Mr. Herbert said.

