PRINCETON: Opposition to private college bill

By Philip Sean Curran, Staff Writer
   Princeton officials are opposing legislation that would exempt private colleges and universities in New Jersey from having to go before local land use boards
   The proposed measure would put those institutions on the same footing as public universities, a move that Assemblyman Jack M. Ciattarelli (R-16) said is a mistake.
   ”I don’t know the history of public colleges and universities not having to appear before local land use boards, but I believe it to be bad public policy. I don’t see the need to make a bad situation worse by extending the same to private colleges and universities,” he said in an email Friday. “I’m all for cutting ‘red tape’ and making New Jersey less bureaucratic, but we would never let businesses, just because they greatly benefit the community, bypass the local land use process.”
   Assemblywoman Donna M. Simon (R-16), Princeton’s other representative in the lower house, did not respond to a request for comment on the issue. Local officials, however, are adamantly against the bill. On the official Princeton Borough website, Mayor Yina Moore has a link to an online petition that people can sign opposing the legislation.
   Township Mayor Chad Goerner, speaking in a phone interview Friday, called the bill a “disaster” for Princeton that eliminates the checks and balances of land use boards. Aside from Princeton University, Princeton Theological Seminary, the Institute for Advanced Study and the Westminster Choir College call Princeton home.
   Based on a 1971 state Supreme Court case involving Rutgers University, all public universities in New Jersey do not have to go before planning or zoning boards that would otherwise have authority over construction or other projects. In February, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in both houses of the Legislature introduced identical measures expanding that exemption to private colleges.
   Mayors Goerner, Moore and the mayors of nine other New Jersey towns that have private colleges signed an open letter sent last month to the state Senate in which they stated their opposition and urged them to reject the measure.
   The upper house, however, passed its version of the bill by a 26-8 vote. The Assembly version has been referred to the Higher Education Committee.
   An advocacy group for the state’s 566 towns is against the bill.
   William G. Dressel Jr., executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, expressed concern Thursday about the “dangerous precedent” the legislation would set for others seeking the same treatment.
   Yet, critics of the bill were unable to cite instances where public colleges have run amuck or otherwise hurt their host towns with their unfettered ability to build things without planning or zoning board approval.
   Mr. Goerner felt that was an apples to oranges comparison because he said a school such as Princeton, with a $17 billion endowment, has greater means to buy property than a state university. He said the school is a major landholder in both towns.
   Princeton University Vice President Robert K. Durkee said Friday that he thinks it is a “sound argument” that public and private universities ought to be treated the same way. He said the Ivy League school has generally had a positive experience when it has had to bring projects to the Planning Board.
   But, he said recent events have caused concern, notably when members of the Borough Council this spring publicly expressed a desire to get more control over the Planning Board. The council was upset because the board found that the so-called “right of way to nowhere” — a measure the council wanted to put on the train tracks to save the Dinky station — was not consistent with the community master plan.
   As for the two mayoral candidates running to lead the consolidated Princeton, Republican Richard Woodbridge, a Princeton University graduate, said Friday that the bill is a “mistake.” Democrat Liz Lempert, a member of the Township Committee, said Monday that she is a “strong opponent” of the proposal.
   She said the governing bodies of the borough and the township passed resolutions in opposition to the legislation.