Princeton voters should encourage their elected representatives to vote against the Special Improvement District (SID) ordinance which will be deliberated and voted upon on Feb. 28.
Adoption of the ordinance will buy into litigation and cost all taxpayers money down the road. The SID is an additional tax, first imposed on commercial property owners and subsequently may very well increase the tax burden on all property owners.
The State of New Jersey permits municipalities to create SIDs in order to redevelop decayed commercial centers in distressed communities. Princeton has the most vibrant commercial center in the state. Princeton is certainly not in need of redevelopment or urban renewal.
To adopt the SID ordinance here would be a misuse of the statute and misguided folly. It will surely be challenged in the courts and all the taxpayers of Princeton will have to foot the bill for litigation in a losing cause.
Those who support the SID ordinance seek to create a “mandatory new chamber of commerce” which will market Princeton as a retail and dining destination. This “mandatory chamber of commerce” will levy a tax on commercial property across the board including office owners, professionals, owners of multiple dwellings and service providers who would derive no economic benefit from the advertising to be undertaken by the SID.
The SID will increase local traffic, exacerbate parking problems and increase air and noise pollution in the town. It will likely ultimately be struck down by the courts, after the expenditure of substantial funds and the creation of untoward collateral damage.
The SID ordinance seeks to create a new bureaucracy, with new offices and new employees, in the guise of an independent organization, a la the Port Authority in New York City. The authority’s task will be to serve the economic interest of a handful of developers and brokers, as well as select retail and restaurant businesses. We are told that only commercial property owners will be forced to pay the bill. However, historically we know that every new bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned or planned, ultimately increases the costs to all citizens.
This authority ostensibly has a sunset date. However, as Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman taught us, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
I am the owner of commercial and residential property in Princeton. It is my considered opinion that the SID ordinance should not be enacted.
John Kuhn Bleimaier
Princeton