Nassau HKT talks stay closed, council says

Dissenters argued for public sessions

By Nick Norlen
Staff Writer
   Despite dissent on council, Princeton Borough’s negotiations with phase 1 downtown developer Nassau HKT will proceed behind closed doors.
   The next step in the process — which was decided during a closed session that some council members voted not to have — will be a “face-to-face” meeting with both parties at Borough Hall.
   And while borough officials differ on what will happen at that session, there seems to be consensus that a resolution won’t be reached during the meeting.
   The most recent communication between the borough and the developer was a Sept. 14 letter from Nassau HKT attorney Gary L. Green requesting further negotiations in response to the borough’s August proposal, a so-called “final offer” meant to wrap up negotiations.
   Borough Administrator Bob Bruschi said he expects the upcoming meeting will feature a “back and forth exchange” with Nassau HKT, but not “in terms of formal negotiations.”
   ”The council will then reserve judgment to go back and have a more candid discussion amongst themselves,” he said.
   Prior to Tuesday’s closed session to discuss negotiations, Councilmen Roger Martindell and Andrew Koontz followed through on their plans to vote against entering into that session and to suggest that the borough disclose its current position to the public.
   However, the majority of council rejected both of those proposals Tuesday after a motion to not discuss Nassau HKT in closed session was defeated 4-2.
   Councilwoman Barbara Trelstad said the council should review Nassau HKT’s response before it takes the next step.
   ”I think we need to look at it, talk about it, and then move to possible suggestions of moving it to the public,” she said.
   Councilwomen Margaret Karcher and Wendy Benchley said that opening the discussion to the public would not help to move the negotiations forward.
   ”You don’t just suddenly turn around and put all of the positions out in the public and say, ‘You decide for us,’” said Ms. Benchley. “We’re elected to do the hard work of negotiation.”
   However, both Mr. Martindell said Mr. Koontz said that engaging in further negotiations without involving the public would weaken the borough’s position.
   Mr. Martindell said Wednesday he believes the upcoming meeting will lead to a change in the terms that will only benefit Nassau HKT.
   ”Indications are that further negotiations are not going to result in Nassau HKT coming within the terms of the borough’s final offer,” he said. “If you put a bunch of politicians in a room with a bunch of hard-nosed businessmen, and somebody is going to blink, who do you think is going to be blinking?”
   Mr. Martindell said that the developer’s Sept. 14 letter indicated, that “They didn’t want to respond in writing. They wanted to schmooze us with a face-to-face meeting.”
   However, Councilman David Goldfarb said during the meeting Tuesday that Nassau HKT was simply reacting to the fact that the borough requested a written response, rather than a face-to-face meeting.
   Mr. Koontz said: “There seems to be a sentiment both on council and with Nassau HKT that somehow a face-to-face meeting with everybody sitting in the same room will somehow cause areas of difference that we have to evaporate. Perhaps that will happen.”
   Ms. Benchley, during Tuesday’s meeting, argued that pursuing further negotiation doesn’t necessarily equate to making concessions.
   ”I think the developer has made some movement and I think we’ve made some movement,” she said. “So I think that we should continue to work as hard as we can to find out where they are on the points that we still haven’t agreed on and come to a compromise and move forward with this project.”
   That statement prompted Mr. Koontz to interject: “Or simply give them what they want.”
   Ms. Benchley said that pursuing alternatives to NHKT would be unwise, and called the possibility of seeking out other developers an “ephemeral dream.”
   ”If we get into that, we’ll be years and years in lawsuits, trying to convince another developer to do what we’re trying to get done,” she said.
   Mr. Koontz said Wednesday that he believes continuing to meet with the developer behind closed doors is essentially “negotiating at the expense of the public.”
   Although he said “some cosmetic changes” could be made, Mr. Koontz said he “would strongly resist changing the agreement that in a way would be more beneficial for Nassau HKT.”
   Ms. Benchley, on Wednesday, said she remains optimistic about the negotiations but does not expect the next meeting with Nassau HKT principal Jack Morrison to resolve “the two or three issues that we are still working on negotiating.”
   Although Mr. Bruschi said that Nassau HKT has not threatened litigation, he said it’s a possibility that is “outlined in the redevelopment agreement.”
   He added, “We all know that that’s an avenue. If we disagree on points, we can mediate them. If we can’t mediate them, we both have the right to take it to a judge and have a judge answer the questions for us.”
   However, he said the borough has not explored the option of other developers, and said that doing so while Nassau HKT is under contract would be “inappropriate.”
   Borough resident Mark Alexandridis, who works in the financial field and who has offered to assist the borough with the negotiations, said the council’s decision not to open the matter to the public was “wholly disappointing, but consistent with their behavior on this project from its inception.”
   He said offers from him and other residents to help with the negotiations have been rejected.
   And although he said questions about the project that he submitted to the borough on more than one occasion have gone unanswered, he said he knows enough to believe that the borough is engaged in “one-sided negotiations” that “uniformly disadvantage the taxpayer.”
   ”Frankly, it’s not really a negotiation,” Mr. Alexandridis said. “The developer is holding Borough Council hostage.”
   He said that the one or two public sessions that have been promised once an agreement is proposed will not be sufficient.
   ”Fundamentally, I think I and a number of other residents are quite frustrated with the process and the unwillingness to be transparent about issues of consequence,” he said.
   Mr. Koontz said he is also frustrated — with “the lack of progress” and “the pace of the negotiations. I don’t even have to go into what the details are or these items that the majority of council have deemed should not be discussed in public,” he said. “I think it should be fairly obvious to everyone that he negotiations have stalled.”
   Mr. Bruschi also acknowledged frustration Thursday.
   ”I think both sides are frustrated,” he said. “I think that the letter that (Nassau HKT) sent is out of frustration in their mind as to how long it has taken to this point. But I can unequivocally say that we share this frustration at this end.”
   However, Mr. Koontz said “there’s more in it for the developer than the municipality” in the outstanding aspects of the redevelopment.
   Still, he said he would like to see the remaining projects — such as the construction of Building C at the current site of the Tulane Street parking lot — to “happen sooner than later.”
   He added, “My opinion on the development altogether hasn’t changed.”
   But differences of opinion on Borough Council are further complicating the negotiations, he said.
   ”I think the council is divided on this issue and I think that’s clear,” he said. “At this point, we’re in a tight spot.”
   Ms. Benchley said both sides need to compromise.
   However, when asked the alternative in the event that Nassau HKT continues to reject offers from the borough, she said, “I don’t know what happens. I think they want a negotiated settlement. I’m perfectly happy to meet two, three, four more times.”
   Ms. Benchley said she doesn’t believe “it’s too much to ask to ask Borough Council members to sit in closed session and really try to hammer out a compromise settlement.”
   But Mr. Martindell said it may indeed be too much.
   ”We are seven essentially volunteer persons unschooled in development work and we are negotiating with pros who have a lot of money at stake and there’s a fair amount of hubris that we have the skills to match them at the negotiating table,” he said. “We don’t.”