Letter to the Editor, April 20, 2006

Peace in our time
To the editor:
   
I watched the March 27 Township Committee meeting at home because the tax appeal litigation was not on the agenda. In his "Committee Report," I heard John Murphy describe the settlement as a compromise through which both the township and the boroughs would get some but not all of what they would want. He stated that the township would obtain tax savings of $83,000, but would forego its suit for more than three times that ($280,000) of additional savings, that, in court, the judge stated would very likely be awarded to the township without a settlement. Mark Iorio and Judy Niederer commented that these actual and potential savings would be even larger over time.
   In last year’s Dec. 12 committee meeting, Vanessa Sandom and David Sandahl made their position very clear when they refused to endorse the tax appeal litigation recommended by the township’s consultant. They said that if mistakes had in fact been made detrimental to the township’s taxpayers the township should merely accept them, because successful tax appeal litigation financially hurting the boroughs (and helping the township) would further deteriorate future negotiations between the township and the boroughs.
   Only on Dec. 27, at a committee meeting missed by both Ms. Sandom and Mr. Sandahl, were Mr. Iorio, Ms. Niederer, and Mayor Arlene Kemp able to pass a resolution endorsing the tax appeal litigation. Without the tax appeal litigation, township taxpayers would not even have received the 20 percent of what they are entitled that is included in the settlement, nor would the township have obtained any new leverage in negotiations with the boroughs.
   So what did the township gain by giving up 80 percent of the tax savings that the judge pronounced would very likely be awarded to the township? Mr. Murphy described an agreement by the boroughs to "work cooperatively" on interlocal services and for Pennington to engage in a discussion on the extension of sewer lines into parts of the township in proximity to Pennington. Of course, "cooperation" and "engagement in a discussion" do not prevent unreasonable demands and refusals of very reasonable offers. Even the Hopewell Borough agreement for binding arbitration on the amount paid for police services can still be rejected in its entirety by the borough, with a threat to look elsewhere for police services, potentially leaving the township in a precarious position with excess police personnel. In short, the boroughs and township can still do whatever they want.
   I do fervently hope that the boroughs and the township can find a way to work together more cooperatively on interlocal services and sewers that would ultimately improve services to and reduce tax burdens of their taxpayers. But just as what Neville Chamberlain, former prime minister of England, achieved in his policy of appeasement with Germany before World War II, Mr. Murphy, Mayor Sandom and Mr. Sandahl have achieved "peace in our time," which, of course, we all know was then and is now not worth the paper on which it is written.
Len Ramist
Hopewell Township