By Victoria Hurley-Schubert, Staff Writer
No candidate for borough mayor was given a full endorsement at the Princeton Community Democratic Organization’s standing room only meeting on Sunday night.
Councilman David Goldfarb was given the recommendation of the organization to be placed in the Democratic column on the primary ballot, but without the official slogan because he received 43 percent support of the Borough voters in attendance.
(See breakdown of the votes on page 9A)
Mr. Goldfarb was challenged by Yina Moore and Anne Waldron Neumann, who each received 22 votes, or 19 percent of the votes from borough residents.
Even without full endorsement, Mr. Goldfarb might end up in the coveted left column, as the Mercer County Democratic chair makes placement decisions based on local party recommendations.
”I take the recommendation of their municipal party chair as the recommendation I will follow,” said Mercer County Democratic Chairwoman Elizabeth Muoio, who said she had not spoken to the PCDO yet. “As Princeton Borough municipal chair, I’m going to follow his lead.”
With more than 40 percent of vote, the candidate has the right to be in the Democratic column, she said.
After the meeting, Mr. Goldfarb said “if I can keep the other two out of the column, it’s tantamount to endorsement.”
In their opening statements, each candidate summarized their platform.
Ms. Neumann was pro-municipal consolidation and advocated for a more business-friendly mayor and supports a special improvement district and the creation of an economic development commission.
Mr. Goldfarb said the borough must spend responsibility and has encouraged businesses to work together; he also talked about shared dispatch. He pointed out his experience on the council will facilitate the consolidation process should it pass in November.
Ms. Moore said the borough is facing “tough decisions that could affect the defining values of our town.” The community needs to come together to search for fresh ideas with our citizens, she said.
The first question asked their perception of the role of the mayor.
Ms. Moore said the mayor breaks the tie if the council is divided, but she “thinks it is a time to set the agenda to move forward on issues” and the mayor needs to forcefully deal with the university.
Mr. Goldfarb said “the mayor has no power at all unless the community and council are behind them, so the mayor has no power unless the community follows.”
Ms. Neumann would look at what other communities are doing and take the mayor’s role on the zoning board more seriously. “(It’s) amazing power to guide development,” she said.
The candidates were asked what services would be eliminated if the budget had to be cut by $1.3 million, presumably to make up the difference should Princeton University decide to withdraw its voluntary payment to the borough.
”I’d start where the money is and the money is in the police department,” said Mr. Goldfarb. “That would be the first place I’d look.” He would then cut from human services and public works.
Ms. Neumann and Ms. Moore would both move toward shared services. Ms. Neumann would also look at the charter schools, which take money out of the public school system. Ms. Moore would look at existing shared services that are lacking efficiencies.
As to what would be the most significant downside to consolidation, there were varying opinions.
Ms. Neumann, who called herself a “borough patriot,” said the borough would need to retain representation it has now.
Money and values worried Ms. Moore. “When we marry for money and the money runs out, then we’re in trouble,” she said, and the discussion of values needs to happen now.
The lack of attention the consolidated community might have toward the downtown was the biggest downside for Mr. Goldfarb.
Visions of a diverse Princeton differed.
”Anyone of any persuasion can come to Princeton and find a place that is welcoming,” said Ms. Moore.
Ms. Neumann called the diversity of the borough “the jewel in our crown.”
And Mr. Goldfarb said it is “what binds us and keeps us here is a sharing of values and what’s keeping people out is the economic affordability of living here.”
The next question was about the New Jersey Department of Transportation plans for Route 1 that call for the closing of two of the main arteries into the Princetons, which local officials fear will have a negative impact on local traffic and business.
All agreed it was a bad idea. “Let them try it and the consequences should become obvious in a short time,” said Mr. Goldfarb.
To make Princeton more sustainable, the candidates advocated different ideas.
Ms. Neumann would consider zoning changes to preserve existing neighborhoods and sustain environmental practices.
Mr. Goldfarb said he supports keeping the downtown a place for people to live and work, the continued tightening of the sewer system and going beyond the conventional way of thinking.
Ms. Moore said keeping people engaged and caring is key to sustainability success.
Finally, the candidates were asked if they would need to recuse themselves from university related issues and what would they do to make the university more responsive to community needs financially and otherwise.
Ms. Moore would not to recuse herself; and she is an alumna and she has realized what the university tells people is not what they tell the alumni.
Mr. Goldfarb has recused himself in regards to talks regarding the university’s proposed arts and transit plan because he works for a company working with the university and asks the community to engage the university.
Ms. Neumann said she would not need to recuse, but would leverage the university with a special improvement district.

