By Greg Forester, Staff Writer
WEST WINDSOR — A five-question redevelopment questionnaire won’t make it onto the November ballot, despite the best petition-gathering efforts of two men concerned about the township’s redevelopment process.
Mike Ranallo, a Trenton resident with family in the township, and Fisher Place resident Pete Weale released a statement over the weekend admitting failure in their push to gather enough signatures by what was believed to have been an Aug. 22 deadline.
The two had spent hours at different locations in the township gathering signatures over the past few weeks, but despite the lack of sufficient signatures, they remained confident that the effort was a worthwhile exercise as the township continues work on a redevelopment plan for a 350-acre area around the Princeton Junction train station.
”We didn’t lose the game; we ran out of time,” read the statement. “We feel confident our accomplishments in trying to provide township taxpayers choices within the past two weeks has eclipsed the township’s seven years and over $1 million spent without voter approval.”
Neither divulged the number of signatures they actually secured, although Mr. Ranallo said they were able to get a “significant” portion of the number they believed was needed.
If they had been successful, voters in the township would have seen a five-part questionnaire polling residents about additional housing, office space, retail space, a Main Street along Route 571, and additional resident parking, all potential components of a redevelopment plan.
Their efforts, they said, came amid ambiguity and confusion in official township responses to requests for the exact number of signatures necessary to get the questions on the ballot and the exact deadline — and that hampered their efforts — both men said.
Officials from the township clerk’s office never provided a clear statement about the exact date of the deadline for the petitions and the actual number of voter signatures required to successfully put the questions on the ballot, Mr. Weale said.
Mr. Ranallo said Township Attorney Michael Herbert, who recently released a legal opinion from March 2007 that labeled redevelopment referendums as “legally questionable,” did not inform the two about the possible illegality of the referendum until very late into their efforts, although Mr. Herbert disputed the validity of those statements.
”Mr. Weale did call me, and I informed him on July 29 that the matter was questionable,” said Mr. Herbert. “In addition to that, I publicly issued the (referendum) memorandum and that has been freely discussed at public meetings.”
If not successful, the referendum effort was educational for residents, according to Mr. Weale and Mr. Ranallo.
Mr. Weale said the petition drive revealed contradictions in the fiscal approach given to the ongoing, years-long redevelopment process by government officials and treatment given to other issues, like council member expense policies and stipends, numbering in the thousands of dollars.
”We are focusing on the expense policy, but we’re going to spend $1.2 million on the Schenk Farmstead,” Mr. Weale said.
He said the petition efforts and the response from township residents demonstrated a level of concern about the redevelopment planning.
”The people are pretty hot about this issue the more they know about it,” Mr. Weale said.
