By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
It is generally agreed by the citizens of the “two Princetons” that we are one community in all important respects except for our separate government structures.— Report of the Joint Consolidation Committee of Princeton, November 1976.
Although these words are over 30 years old they appear as if they could have been written yesterday. Despite a commonly held feeling of being “one community,” and considering consolidation for “so long,” the borough and township appear as far from formally merging into one municipality as they ever were, with consolidation referendums defeated in 1953, 1979 and 1996.
Much has changed since the consolidation committee report of 1976, even since the last consolidation vote on election day in November 1996, when over 74.1 percent of township voters said yes to consolidation but 55.4 percent of borough voters said no.
Since that point, Princeton Township has cemented its reputation as one of the most desirable bedroom communities in New Jersey, downtown Princeton Borough has undergone major development and has become a regional tourism and shopping destination, and Princeton University has embarked on ambitious expansion plans on many fronts.
But high property taxes have also become a concern, parking problems and traffic congestion have soared, Princeton University’s financial commitment to the larger community has been questioned, and both municipalities have been hard pressed to keep up services within constrained budgets. Additionally, of late, municipal officials at both the borough and township have been devoting large amounts of time to squaring joint fiscal and services agreements with each other, and their negotiations have often devolved into seemingly intractable disputes.
Proponents of consolidation say the time is again right to consider merging the borough and township, especially given a new set of flexible state laws and incentives designed to promote municipal consolidation and efficiency.
”All of us have a different agenda, and we have different ideas and opinions and that’s important,” said Township Committeeman Chad Goerner, a vocal proponent for consolidation. “At the end of the day we have to focus on the larger community, on benefiting the taxpayer, the planning and future of the community and working with the university as a united front,” Mr. Goerner said.
”It was a good idea then, it is a good idea now, it will remain a good idea for the foreseeable future for both communities,” said Borough Councilman Roger Martindell, who supported the 1996 consolidation effort.
”I think what’s happened unfortunately, because Princeton tried so many times in the past (to consolidate) and didn’t proceed, there is a residue of attitude that we have to protect ourselves from each other and that gets in the way of problem solving,” said Marvin Reed, who was mayor of the borough and a backer of consolidation during the last vote in 1996.
But given the current budgetary constraints on them both, “it is increasingly difficult for the two Princetons to maintain the kind of budgets that they have had in the past,” said Mr. Reed, who currently serves on a commission set up by the state Legislature to look at efficiency, reorganization and consolidation issues pertaining to New Jersey’s 566 municipalities.
”I think it is a good time to begin to re-examine (consolidation) but I think it should be done deliberately, carefully and not with undue haste,” Mr. Reed said.
The borough and township are far ahead of other closely tied communities in the number of joint agencies they already have — from those overseeing health, sewer and senior services, to the public library and zoning and planning oversight, said Township Mayor Phyllis Marchand. But both municipalities are spending “a lot of time and energy” examining other agencies that could be consolidated, from housing authorities to the two police departments, she said.
”I think that energy little by little, the efficiency of all of this would be much better if it was just one town,” Mayor Marchand said. “It is more the efficiency of government than the savings,” that argue for consolidation, she said, although “the savings might be there.”
”I’m not out there wearing consolidation on my chest but I am saying this might be a time to take a look at it,” she said.
Mayor Marchand acknowledged that despite possible efficiencies and savings, consolidation “is more of an emotional and passionate issue,” and in the past “the borough felt they would lose their identity.”
Mayor Marchand said perhaps community discussion and information sessions facilitated by an independent organization, such as the nonprofit Princeton Future, would be an appropriate next step. “A marketing and a PR kind of campaign with a great deal of education,” is needed for consolidation to be successful, she said.
Borough Mayor Mildred Trotman said she supported consolidation in the 1970s, but not in the most recent vote in 1996. She moved from the township to the borough in 1972 and developed an appreciation for the borough’s uniqueness. “Somehow there is such a nice feeling about being small,” Mayor Trotman said. “That is precious to me, I like it.”
Mayor Trotman said she would want to hear the arguments for and against consolidation at present before making up her mind again. “I’m certainly not opposed to it but I’m not ready to jump on the bandwagon either,” she said.
”The form of government that is ultimately going to rule is absolutely important to me, I don’t hear much about that,” she said. A council form of government where voters elect the mayor “is a better form of representation” than a committee form where committee members select the mayor, Mayor Trotman said.
Mr. Martindell said perhaps a ward system of representation should be considered, where voters in each ward would elect a representative to council, who would represent their specific interests.
Borough Councilman David Goldfarb was opposed to consolidation at the time of the referendum in 1996 and is still opposed to it for the same reasons, he said. “A borough mayor and council is much more likely to pay close attention to the health of downtown than a larger oversight body,” Mr. Goldfarb said.
Downtown and the university “are the two factors that make Princeton Princeton,” Mr. Goldfarb said. He said that when the location of a new public library was discussed, township residents wanted easy access by car and pushed for the new library to be located in the Princeton Shopping Center, “and literally nobody on the Township Committee expressed the slightest concern with downtown.”
Saying he would love to expand the range of joint borough-township services, Mr. Goldfarb said “if one believes that consolidation is the answer, the best way to pursue that course is to combine the agencies one at a time.”
Borough Councilman Kevin Wilkes said he is “a huge proponent of downtown” and is skeptical about whether a larger municipality would value the interests of downtown as borough government currently does. “The township is a driving, suburban community,” and very different from the borough community, which walks, bikes and takes public transit, he said.
He cited as troubling certain township officials’ unconcerned reaction to Princeton University’s current proposal to move the Dinky station farther from downtown. “I see township officials asking me, ‘Well Kevin, why can’t you walk another 460 feet, what’s the problem?’” he said, not understanding moving the Dinky farther from downtown “will inhibit our ability to promote downtown as a traditional walkable town center.”
Mr. Wilkes said he prized Princeton’s neighborhoods, and wanted to be assured that those like the Witherspoon-Jackson neighborhood would retain their identities. “I wouldn’t want to see the borough gobbled up, and lose the focus on downtown,” he said.
”I really haven’t made up my mind and I think it is important for my constituents that I keep an open mind,” Mr. Wilkes said. He said he has lived in both the township and borough, worked as a building inspector for the township and later, in 1996, was hired as an independent architect to help the township look at what would happen to its facilities under consolidation.
”The goals that people cite for consolidation are all admirable but the dynamics are overwhelming. I am very very willing to discuss it, I can’t commit myself until I know what it means,” Mr. Wilkes said.
Township Committeeman Lance Liverman said he did not think borough residents should be concerned that the township would give less attention to downtown Princeton. “All of us in the township, we consider Nassau Street our street also,” shopping and dining there regularly, Mr. Liverman said.
”I am all for revisiting consolidation,” said Mr. Liverman, but noted “the only way consolidation will work — and we can help facilitate it — is if it comes from a groundswell of the actual citizens of the township and borough.”
Mr. Reed and Mr. Goerner said recent changes in New Jersey’s consolidation law have given far more autonomy and flexibility in the process to the combining municipalities, addressed the concerns over loss of authority and unique neighborhood characteristics.
The current consolidation law allows autonomous districts within a new municipality, which could have a different tax rate and different municipal services from other areas, Mr. Reed said. The new law would enable, for example, the borough to continue to have municipal garbage collection while the township does not, and to ban overnight parking while the township does not, “things like that that really got in the way of past attempts at consolidation,” he said.

