Consolidation has consequences

Phyllis Teitelbaum, Princeton
   In his letter of April 10, “No significant tax savings in consolidation,” David W. Blair argues very persuasively that consolidation will not lower our taxes. Indeed, he points out that the most recent consolidation commission study (1996) found that, if there were any savings at all, these savings would be quite small.
   Once Princeton residents realize that consolidation will not save money, many will probably drop the idea of consolidating. But for those who think consolidation might still be worth doing for other reasons, here is some food for thought:
   • Although total taxes will almost certainly remain virtually the same, consolidation could cause the property tax bills of either former Princeton Township residents or former Princeton Borough residents to increase significantly. A new state law promises that the state will provide tax relief, but the system for doing this is untried.
   • In a consolidated Princeton municipality, differences in residents’ attitudes and life styles would not necessarily disappear. For example, the differences that led to sharp disagreement over the location of the library would probably continue. It seems likely that such differences would cause strong conflict within the new municipality’s governing body, making it difficult to govern the new municipality.
   • The township and the borough have many ordinances that differ from each other, about things like sidewalks, garbage collection, and leash laws. Since the borough has fewer voters than the township, representation in the governing body would almost certainly favor the township. As a result, the former borough could be outvoted on every issue on which the former municipalities differ. A new state law permits wards instead of voting at-large, but former borough residents would probably dominate fewer than half the wards. Another provision claims to allow different ordinances to remain in the two former municipalities. But, on closer reading, this provision seems designed to permit different ordinances for only five years. As a result, instead of a “consolidation,” we may eventually witness a “takeover of the borough by the township.”
   One of my father’s favorite sayings was, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” It seems clear that consolidation won’t save us money. And it may very likely have both foreseen and unforeseen negative consequences. We will be better off if we just leave things the way they are.
Phyllis Teitelbaum
Princeton