Letters to the Editor, June 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, June 8

Mayor Trotman’s victory message
To the editor:
   
To all of the voters who came out on Tuesday, June 5 to support me at the polls, thank you so much for your vote of confidence. I will continue torepresent you in a fair and balanced manner as we work together to preserve the town of which we are so proud.
   To all the volunteers that helped the campaign in the many ways that sometimes go unnoticed, but so necessary to be victorious, thank you.
   To the passionate group of supporters who signed on and worked so tirelessly from the beginning to the very end, giving so much time and energy to this campaign, I could not have done this without your help and I will be forever grateful to you.
   I look forward to working with Mrs. Pimley and all residents on various issues that concern all of us in Princeton Borough.
   This primary was a new and exciting experience for me. I appreciate more than ever what a wonderful community this is and will do my best to keep the positive image for all of us to enjoy.
Mildred T. Trotman
Mayor
Borough of Princeton
Little enthusiasm for Hillier plan
To the editor:
   
The small turnout for Hillier’s presentation Monday evening spoke volumes about the public’s lack of enthusiasm and shared vision for the redevelopment, a reality that now compels Mayor Hsueh to hand walking papers to both township attorney Herbert and planning board chair Gardner, as a first step in getting this back on track. Gardner’s sad and fruitless attempt to defend what he thought was an open, public process demonstrated how badly this administration just doesn’t get it. And the symbolism was even worse as those on stage, in power, outnumbered those being governed, in the audience.
   Mr. Gardner’s extended listing of every meeting the township conducted and all of the opportunities the residents have had to comment on the plate of offerings made by this top-down democracy-free process that has continued to miss the point that instead of picking one from Column A and one from Column B, the now awakened residents actually wanted to go into the kitchen, to learn about the ingredients, and to learn the various recipes of all of the items available on columns A and B so we could determine which were best for our town. We wanted to do the trade-offs not just hear about them. We are "all aboard" in name only.
   In spite of the Gardner-Herbert proclamations about open process, West Windsor residents have never had a chance to peak into the back-room where the sausage was being made or where the assumptions underlying the analyses might be tested. As Hsueh’s leading proponent on council and cheerleader for redevelopment, Herbert has proven himself incapable of remaining an attorney who can represent both the mayor and council much as he failed to do in Hamilton.
   Now that the residents spoke on Election Day, we need to encourage Hsueh to thank Herbert and Gardner for their services and send them on. Hsueh also needs to hand the reins of redevelopment over to council which should set up a committee of truly open-minded residents to coordinate and participate in a true community wide charrette – not a workshop – but a real charrette with no preconceptions, no lines in the sand calling for 1,000 units.
   With all of this public property being leveraged to produce private developer profits, shouldn’t the residents of West Windsor decide how much money developers should make on this? With the plan, Hillier’s consultant tells us they get $73 million; is this too little or too much? If our tax money is at risk supporting the bonds used to generate developer profits, as well as our amenities, don’t we deserve to evaluate the trade-offs, rather than being simply handed them as a done deal?
   Without new players driving redevelopment, a dead-on-arrival plan is now headed for Mr. Gardner’s Planning Board and a set of useless hearings. What a waste this will all be and doubly so since Hillier’s skills have been squandered by a flawed all-too-controlled process that did not trust the people.
   The timing for these personnel changes is perfect – let’s hope that with the reorganization on July 1 Mayor Hsueh does the right thing and acknowledges the democracy he rules by bringing in new management so a town center can be brought to life.
Farrell Delman
Bear Brook Road
West Windsor
Concerned about Hillier plan
To the editor:
   
I was at the West Windsor Council/Planning Board meeting on 4 June to review the plans presented by Hillier. I am very concerned. First, in spite of the recent election results, and the mayor’s call for a "modified" "consensus" plan, Hillier’s plan is still basically the same as the one presented in the third workshop, and the firm clearly favors the 1,000 housing units. The "reduced scale" plans simply reduce that plan to three-quarters, half, or quarter size.
   I have a number of specific concerns with the Financial analysis presented by ERA.
   1) The analysis depends upon a Payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) agreement. Hamilton showed some of the problems with PILOTs. Dr. Katz also expressed several concerns with this. ERA said that school funding (at current per-student rates) would be allowed for. Fine. But a PILOT means an agreement, for 15 to 30 years, on a fixed payment schedule in place of tax rates determined every year. If school or municipal costs are higher than projected, the PILOT payments will not increase as fast as taxes in the rest of the township, placing an unfair burden on the rest of the town and effectively subsidizing the residents and businesses in the redevelopment area.
   2) On page 9 of the ERA analysis it says: "Approximately 55 percent of the municipal budget is funded by local taxes." The analysis assumes that this percentage will stay constant. The other 45 percent came (in 2007) from Municipal fees (14.9 percent), use of existing surplus (12.8 percent), State aid (9.6 percent), Interest income (4 percent) Back taxes (1 percent) and state/federal grants (0.4 percent). None of these are likely to expand in proportion to the tax base with redevelopment, most won’t expand at all. And "surplus" and "back taxes" still derive from property taxes. Thus the ERA analysis underestimates the tax impact of services to new development by more than 40 percent, or roughly $10 million per year.
   3) ERA projects two sources of value to the township: 1) excess of tax payments over incremental costs, and 2) "Residual Development Valu" or "Amenity valu". This is, in effect, the developer’s potential profits (those more than 1 percent) which the developer may share with the township, either through a cash payment, or more likely, by building infrastructure for the township.
   But there is no guarantee that a developer will agree to devote all of the "residual value" to the township. Probably only a portion of this will be available, and we don’t know how much. Based only on the actual tax collections, all of the scenarios are tax negative as compared to the "of right" scenario, that is development based on the existing zoning. Only if all or most of the "residual" value is captured is even the 1000 unit plan value-positive.
   Hillier dismisses a zero-housing option as requiring no development at all, because of affordable housing. He overlooks the option of providing such housing elsewhere in the township.
   I hope the new council will scrutinize redevelopment plans very carefully indeed.
David E. Siegel
Berrien Avenue
West Windsor
Help CASA help children
To the editor:
   
Many local families are busily preparing for the summer—arranging flights, putting labels on camp clothing, celebrating graduations. Our children are looking forward to days at the beach or internships with theater companies, and leisure time spent with friends and family.
   But there are over 500 children in Mercer County who do not have such prospects or families to plan them. These children are in out-of-home placement because of neglect or abuse. They often don’t know where they will be living from one week to the next, and are usually separated from all that is familiar.
   A fortunate few of these Mercer County children have a CASA, a Court Appointed Special Advocate. A CASA is a caring adult who volunteers his/her time to act as a coordinator and advocate for a child in out-of-home placement. A CASA interacts with the family, the court system, the schools, and most importantly the child to ensure that the child is getting the care all children deserve. Currently only about 20 percent of Mercer County children who need a CASA have one.
   CASA of Mercer County is conducting information sessions on June 14, July 17, and August 9 at 7:00 PM at 180 Ewingville Road, Ewing. Come and learn how you can volunteer and make a lasting difference in the life of a child. Call CASA of Mercer at (609) 434-0050, or visit www.casamercer.org. Bring some brightness into the life of a child.
Kim H. Millar MD
CASA of Mercer County
Lake Drive
Princeton
Editorial in Packet unfair to PCDO
To the editor:
   
It seems to me that the Princeton Community Democratic Organization is being set up as straw bogeyman in The Packet’s June 1 editorial on its supposed highly negative reaction to Kim Pimley’s candidacy for borough mayor. The editorial charges that the PCDO has attempted "to dismiss Ms. Pimley," that it has instigated "nefarious" innuendos about her supporters, and, finally, that "the PCDO’s treatment of Ms. Pimley…cast an unflattering light on the party" — strong charges that are supported by no substantive evidence in the editorial.
   The PCDO in recent years has sincerely encouraged competition among potential Democratic candidates at all levels of local government. For her own reasons, Ms. Pimley, a member of the PCDO, did not venture to win its endorsement. Mildred Trotman did run and was endorsed by the membership. Your editorial chose not to note that, in a letter to the editor in the previous issue (May 29), the president of the PCDO, Jenny Crumiller, while appropriately endorsing Ms. Trotman, does not use this obvious platform to criticize Ms. Pimley’s candidacy. While individual members of the PCDO have certainly publicly indicated their personal reasons for their opposition to Ms. Pimley’s candidacy, what is wrong with that and on what grounds does this possibly demean the PCDO as an organization? If I detect any evidence of character assassination here—well, let me just say that I don’t think that it’s the PCDO that’s engaging in it.
Russ Weiss
Wittmer Court
Princeton
Campaign funds a relevant issue
To the editor:
   
Your June 1 editorial about the primary contest between Mayor Mildred Trotman and Kim Pimley argued that Mayor Trotman’s campaign inappropriately made Ms. Pimley’s campaign contributions an issue. But President Bush’s "bundled" contributions from corporations and lobbyists have been widely reported, as have Senator Barak Obama’s many small contributions raised via the Internet. Campaign contributions typically reflect the interests candidates have addressed or may address if elected. Why is it then irrelevant that most of Ms. Kimley’s unprecedentedly large campaign fund came from a few Western-district contributors, some of whom had also contributed heavily to the Republican National Committee and George W. Bush?
   Why is it irrelevant that these supporters—so The Packet acknowledged—also oppose, as does Ms Pimley, "the limitations of a proposed historic designation for their homes"?
   The Packet editorial concluded thus: "As for the presumably terrifying spectacle" of Republicans contributing to a Democratic mayoral candidate like Ms. Pimley, "we can only observe that the borough’s Democratic administration seems to have no qualms about taking their money in the form of property taxes and fees."
   How then should municipal governments raise revenue if not from property taxes and fees? Surely The Packet wouldn’t prefer bribes and kickbacks. Surely The Packet wasn’t implying that Borough officials fund their re-election campaigns with property taxes.
Anne Waldron Neumann
Alexander Street
Princeton
Editor’s Note:
   
The writer is correct: The Packet was not implying "that borough officials fund their re-election campaigns with property taxes. And The Packet is not in favor of "bribes and kickbacks,"just a modicum of respect for the right of all taxpayers—even Republicans— to make political contributions without a presumption of wrongdoing.