PACKET EDITORIAL, Nov. 28
By: Packet Editorial
At long last, the strategy of the Concerned Citizens of Princeton is becoming clear. Like the Bush administration, which treats every new incident of terrorism in Iraq as proof that great progress is being made, the Concerned Citizens evidently believe that every defeat they suffer in their attempt to block the downtown redevelopment project brings them one step closer to victory.
So confident is the nonprofit group that it will ultimately prevail in the courts even though it has lost, summarily, at every step so far that it now insists the borough halt construction of the 500-car parking garage that stands at the heart of the redevelopment project. So convinced is the group that the borough has misapplied state law to this project despite substantial evidence that the project is precisely the kind of redevelopment the Legislature had in mind when it passed the law that it accuses the borough of squandering taxpayer dollars by pressing ahead with construction while the case is under appeal.
As we have observed before, the Concerned Citizens have every right to disagree with the borough’s decision to improve the site of the two surface parking lots off Spring Street by authorizing construction of a garage and related development. They had every right to file their lawsuit challenging the borough’s decision to declare this site an area in need of redevelopment. We happen to support the borough’s decision, and we believe Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg acted properly in rejecting every argument the Concerned Citizens made in their lawsuit.
At the heart of this case is the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, passed in 1992. The purpose of this law is to assist municipalities in promoting redevelopment of land that is unutilized or underutilized. An earlier version of the law was aimed primarily at helping urban municipalities attack "blight," but the 1992 law specifically removed "blight" from its definitions, and broadened the criteria that could be employed by all municipalities urban, suburban and rural to spur redevelopment.
Judge Feinberg ruled in April that Princeton Borough was entitled to invoke this law, and that it did so properly. Since then, the Concerned Citizens have persisted in their argument that downtown Princeton isn’t "blighted," despite the absence of any mention of blight from the applicable law. They have argued that the law was never intended to apply to affluent communities like Princeton, despite this unambiguous statement from the law’s sponsor, former Sen. Gerald Stockman: "If it helps Princeton Borough with its parking problem and to redevelop its downtown, that fits with the law." They have insisted that several of the criteria for declaring an area in need of redevelopment do not exist in downtown Princeton, despite the law’s clear provision that only one criterion need apply in order for such a declaration to be made.
A clue to how persuasive the judiciary is likely to find the Concerned Citizens’ appeal may lie in a landmark case decided by the state Supreme Court more than 30 years ago. Under the far more stringent criteria of the redevelopment law in effect prior to 1992, the high court ruled that Bridgewater Township had the authority to declare as "blighted" a relatively undeveloped area of land adjacent to Route 22 and Interstate 287. This redevelopment area ultimately became the Bridgewater Commons Mall.
It is hard to imagine any New Jersey court finding today’s law less applicable to Princeton than an earlier, more restrictive version was to Bridgewater. Unless, of course, your idea of judicial precedent is that the more the court rejects your reasoning, the stronger your case becomes. In which case you’re ready to join either the Bush administration or the Concerned Citizens of Princeton.